INDEX

SL.NO SUBJECT PAGE NO

1. PUBLIC SERVANT 2-5

2. CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT 6-9

3. TRAP 10-26

4. DISPROPORTIONATE ASSETS 27-33

5. SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION 34-50

6. INVESTIGATION 51-58

7. BENAMI TRANSACTION 59-60

8. MISAPPROPRIATION 61-65

9. PRESUMPTION 66-69

10. SPECIAL JUDGE 70-72

11. SPEEDY TRIAL 73

12. COMPLAINANT 74

13. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 75

14. EXPERT EVIDENCE 76

 -2-

PUBLIC SERVANT

1. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Appellants - Vrs - Sri Ram Singh
Respondent. ( K.T.THOMAS ) and R.P.SETHI, JJ ( SUPREME
COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) pre- Act is a social legislation

Designed to curb illegal activities of public servants should be liberally
construed so as to advance its object

( Paras 9, 10 )

( 2000 Cr. L.J. S.C 1401 )

A.I.R 2000 S.C 870 )

2. State of U.P Appellant V. Udai Narayana and another Respondents.

G.B.PATTNAIK AND M.B.SHAH JJ. ( SUPREME COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 Secs. 8,10,13(2) and Sec.13 (1)(d)- Penal Code,
Sec.120- B- Offence under- One accused not being a public servant whether could be
prosecuted under the P.C .Act Held Yes. ( Para 6 )

( 2000 O.C.R Vol- 18 S.C.P 18 )

3. State of Maharashtra,Appellant Vrs. Laljit Rajshi Shah and others,

Respondants.
(G.B.PATTNAIK AND N.SANTOSH HEGDE J.J) ( SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S. 2- Maharashtra Co- Operative

Societies Act ( 24 of 1961 ), Ss. 2 (20), 161- Penal Code ( 45 of 1860 ), S. 21 Public
Servant Chairman of Maharashtra Co- Operative Societies Act Though a Public
Servant under Societies Act Not so, Under S. 21 of Penal Code He can not be
prosecuted for offences under penal code
( Para 6 )
(2000 Cr.L-J. 1494 S.C )
(A.I.R. 2000 S.C 937 )

4. The State of Maharashtra Appellant Vrs. Dr. Rustom Franroze Hakim,

Respondent.
 -3-

(N.J.PANDYA, ACTG C.J. AND B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)

( BOMBAY HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S,5- Bribery- Public Servant- Accused

enrolled as a penal doctor under E.S.I Scheme Is not a public servant within meaning S.
93 of Act of 1948 r/w S.21 of penal code Hence prosecution initiated against him for
offence under S.5- Liable to be quashed. ( Paras 13, 14)
(2000 Cr. L.J. 3401, ( BOM ))

5. Appadirai, Petitioner V. State Rep- by the station House Officer, CID

Branch, Pondichery, Respondent. (MADRAS HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988 ), S.2 (C) - Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 )
S.197 Public Servant sanction for prosecution- Government pleader- Is a public
servant within meaning of S.2 (C)(1) of prevention of corruption Act However, if he
ceased to be a public servant at time of taking cognizance of offence-sanction is not
necessary.
Penal code ( 45 of 1860 ), S-21.
( Paras 4,5,6 )
( 2001 Cr. L-J. P 3129 ( Mad)

6. K.C. Sareen, Appellant Vrs. C.B.I Chandigarh, Respondent.

( K.T.THOMAS AND S.N.VARIAVA, JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S.389 Constitution of India, Art 311(2) Prevention of

corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 13(2) Puiblic servant ( Bank officer ) convicted on a
corruption charge Is not entitled to hold public office Suspension of order of
conviction during pendency of appeal or revision Not permissible.

( 2001 Cr. L.J. S.C . P- 4234 )

( 2001, O.C.R. Vol- 21 P 325 )

7. Ram Avtar Sah, Appellant V.State of Bihar, Respondent

( MRS. INDU PRABHA SINGH, J ) ( PATNA HIGH COURT )

(A) Penal code ( 45 of 1860 ), S. 21 Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ),

S 5 (2 )- Public Servant Surveyor functioning under any of the Revenue Civil Court is a
Public Servant.
(Para-6)
( 2002 Cr. L.J.P 3899 ( PAT )
8. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and others Appellants V. P.Venku Reddy,
Respondent.
 -4-

(M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI JJ.)

(SUPREME COURT)
With

General Manager, District Co- operative Central Bank Ltd. Appellant V.P.Venku Reddy,
Respondent.

Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988 ), S ,.20 (ix ), ( iii)- Public servant Employees
of Co- operative Society Controlled or aided by Govt. Are public servants Their non-
inclusion in C1(ix) does not exclude them from definition of public servants C.1 ( ix)_
has a different purpose- moreover definition has to be construed in purposive manner.

W.A No. 1163 of 2001 , D/26.9.2001 ( AP), Reversed.

( 2002 Cr. L.J. P- 4333 ( S.C )

( 2003 O.C.R V-24 P- 205 ( S.C ))

9. State of Maharashtra and another V. Prabhakarrao and another

Respondents
( D.P MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ )
( SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act, 1988- Sec 2(c) Public Servant Definition of
Under Sec. 21 of the penal code 1860- Held, is of no. relevance under the P.C.Act,1988.

(B) Prevention of corruption Act, 1988- Sec 2(c) clause (iii) and ( ix)- Penal code,
1860- Sec. 21- Public Servant- office bearer of Co- operative society Definition of
Public Servant- under sec 21 I.P.C- Relevance.

( 2003, OCR 24 (SC)- 210 )

10. M . S. Rajput and Others Applicants V. State of Chhatisgarh,

Respondent.
(FAKHRUDDIN, ACTG, C.J) (CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.2(C)-Public Servant-Meaning-

Persons employed in Co-operative Society-Are Public servant within meaning of
provisions of Act of 1988.
(Para-10)
(2005 Cr.L.J.P.-3284(CHH)
 -5-

11. N.K. Sharma V. Abhimanyu

( S. B. SINHA & R. V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ )(SUPREME COURT)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S-197 Sanction to prosecute Appellant a Govt.

Officer working on deputation as Managing Director of Co-operative Society-is not a
public servant within meaning of S.21 of Penal Code Nor deemed to be a public servant
within meaning of S.123 of Act of 1984- Hence, he is not entitled to protection u/s 197.

(2005 Cr.L.J.P-4529(SC))
 -6-

CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT 13 (2 )

1. K.C. Sareen Appellant V. C.B.I, Chandigarh, Respondent.

( K.T. THOMAS AND S.N.VARIAVA JJ.) ( SUPREME COURT)

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S. 389- Constitution of India, Art 311 (2)- Prevention
of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S.13(2)- Public Servant ( Bank Officer ) Convicted on a
corruption charge Is not entitled to hold public Office Suspension of order of
conviction during pedency of appeal or revision Not permissible.

( 2001 Cr. L.J- S.C p- 4234 )

( 2001 O.C.R. Vol.- 21 p 325 S.C )

2. Mahesh Joshi Petitioner V. State by CBI/SPE Bangalore, Respondent.

(K.SREEDHAR RAO , J ) ( KARNATAKA HIGH COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 13 Criminal misconduct

Director of Doordarshan- Allegation that he allowed to continue Telecast of serial
at lower rates than specified- serial in question and its rates approved during
tenure of earlier Director No allegation against accused Director that he had
taken any undue favour or illegal gratification for allowing disputed telecast-
More over revised rates that became applicable 3 days after start of serial were for
less than disputed rates- There is no faintest prima facie material to hold the
petitioner guilty of an offence under section 13- F.I.R liable to be quashed.

Criminal P.C ( 1974 ), Ss. 482, 156. ( Paras 9,10 )

(2002 Cr. L.J.P 97 ( KAR ))

3. Jogindar Pal Dhiman, Appellant V. Union of India, Respondent.

( LOKESHWAR SINGH PATNA, J ) ( HIMACHAL PRADESH
HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.13- Penal code (45 of 1860),
Ss. 420-467,471 Defalcation Accused, officiating Manager in nationalized Bank-
Alleged to have forged face value of F.D.Rs in name of his sons to larger amounts-
Documentary evidence on record supporting said allegation- further accused proved to
have forged signature of second signatory on two F.D.Rs and on another F.D.R he
obtained his signature in good faith by misinterpretation- Accused also defrauded Bank
by issuing and encashing demand drafts in his name and in his wifes name- Defence by
accused was found improbable and evidence adduced by him was unbelievable and
 -7-

unfounded-No evidence to show that accused was defrauded or cheated by any employee
of Bank to take revenge against him plea that accused is a good person and increased
business of Bank etc. would be of no help to him to dis-credit documentary evidence
proved on record conviction of accused for offences charged No interference.

( paras 14,15,17,19,23,24 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J. P 677 ( Him. Pra)

4. Mendi Ram Boro, Appellant V. State ( CBI ), Respondent.

( P.C.PHUKAN, J ) ( GAUHATI HIGH COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), Ss. 5(2), 5(1) (c)- criminal misconduct
by public servant Accused was accounts clerk-cum- cashier in office of S.D.O
Telephones- Accused allegedly manipulated cash memos, A.C Bills etc. for passing
amount for payments there in- Accused in his statement under S.313, Cr. P.C admitted
that writings on cash memos were in his handwriting and hand writing expert also opined
that writings in question were of accused . Further evidence of other witnesses show that
cash memos and other documents in question were forged to inflate respective amounts
shown therein with intention to use such document for cheating conviction of accused
No interference.

Penal coder ( 45 of 1860 ), Ss. 447, 468. ( Paras 8,12)

( 2003 Cr. L.J.P- 1399 ( GAU ))

5) Ram Navain poply Appellant V. Central Bureau of Investigation,

Respondent

With
Pramod Kumar Manocha, Appellant V Central Bureau of Investigation and others
Respondents.
With
Vinayak Narayan Deosthali, Appellant V. Central Bureau of Investigation and others,
Respondents.
With
Harshad S.Mehta, Appellant V. Central Bureau of Investigation, Respondent

And
Central Bureau of Investrigation, Appellant V. Anbuj Sushil Kumar Jain, Respondent.

( M.B.SHAH,. B.N.AGARWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ )( SUPREME

COURT )

(F) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S.13 (2)- Security scam case
Deputy Manager of Govt. Undertaking ( MUL ) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy
with Bank officials caused and allowed MUL s funds to be utilized for wrongful gain of
 -8-

financial broker Deputy Manager ( MUL ) and Bank officials abuse their possession of
public servant Liable to be convicted .
( 2003 Cr. L.J p- 4801 ( S.C ))
( 2003 A.I.R., S.C p-2748)

6) R.Sai Bharathi Appellant V.J. Jayalalitha and others, Respondents

( S.RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ )
(SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 13 Penal Code. ( 45 of

1860), Ss. 409, 420 Corruption charges against Chief Minister and others TANSI (
Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd. ) Sale case Sale at under value Charge
that firm of chief Minister purchased land at price below guideline. Value No guideline
value admittedly fixed for plot in question Charges is defective In earlier sale of plot
by TANSI value was fixed at 3 lakhs per ground That sale was to a private party and
was by open tender- such value could be considered for reflecting value of land in
question Land in question sold to highest bidder, the accused at higher value can not
be said that property in question had been under sold and there was loss to TANSI.

( 2004 Cr. L.J.S.C p- 286 )

7) Nalinikanta Muduli Petitioner V. State of Orissa Opp.Party.

( M. PAPANNA, J ) (ORISSA HIGH COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act,1947 S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) penal code

S.420,468, 471 r/w 120-B- Allegation against the petitioner is that he has obtained
contractors license as a Graduate Engineer and that too without any previous experience-
License was not taken in petitioners name but in the name of construction company
which is a legal entity having registered under Companies Act Materials on record
further indicate that construction company was actually super class contractors license in
3/96 which was upgraded to super class contractors license in 9/97 after executing some
works worth Rs.3.23 crores License issued in the name of construction company was
upgraded to super class category and renewed in the committee of Chief Engineers.
Renewal of contract license being a routine process done in every three years on payment
of required fees- Held, continuance of the proceeding even it is at preliminary stage is an
abuse of process and stands quashed.
(2004 O.C.R.(28 )P-145(ORI))
 -9-

8. Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat,Respondent.

(M.B.SHAH,BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH& H.K SEMA JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.13(1)(d)(i)- Criminal

misconduct by Public Servant- Bribe taking-Mere Acceptance of money- Note
sufficient for conviting accused under S.13(1)(d)(i)-There must be evidence or record
that accused obtainted any amount by corrupt or illegal means-Complainant not
supporting prosecution case on the points of demand and acceptance- From evidence
of panch witness it was not clear that there was any demand by accused and amount
was paid to him by complainant- Accused acquitted.
(Para-6)
(2002Cr.L.J.S.Cp-2787)

9. Rambhau and another, Appellants V. State of Maharashtra,Respondent.

(UMESH C.BANARJEE & K.G BALAKRISHNAN,JJ)(SUPREME

COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruptiopn Act (49 of 1988),S.13- Criminal Misconduct-

Abetment of- Evidence produced by prosecution that accused was public
servant and that he demanded illegal gratification while discharging his
official duties- Co-accused proved to have played significant role in
negotiating on the figure of amount and having notes exchanged at dictate of
accused- Held, Co-accused substaintially abetted the crime and his acquittal
could not be sustainted.
( Para- 12 )
( 2000Cr.L.J S.C p-2343 )
(2001 A.I.R.S.C. p-2120)
 - 10 -

TRAP / BRIBE
1. Mohd. Hadi Hasan Appellant V. State of U.P Respondent.
(B.K.SHARMA J.) ( ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ).

(A) Penal code ( 45 of 1860 ) , S. 161- Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of

1947 ) Ss. 5 (2) (4 )Bribe- Acceptance of Proof Accused, employed by Co-
operative Bank alleged to have demanded Rs. 20/- as bribe for supplying certified copies
of arbitration decree to complainant Trap laid down consistent testimony of
complainant, trap officer and public witnesses about tender of bribe money to accused
Recovery of same currency notes immediately after arrest of accused Presumption that
accused accepted bribe amount by way of gratification arises Plea of false implication
made by accused not found convincing- Accused liable for offence under S. 5(2) of Act
and S. 161 of penal code.

( Paras 17, 24, 26, 35, 36 )

(B) Penal code ( 45 of 1860 ), S. 161- Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of

1947) S.5 (2)- Sentence Time gap of 23 years between date of occurrence and hearing
of appeal sentence reduced.
( paras 37, 38 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J.p- 891 ( ALL )

2) Ajit Singh and another, Appellants V. State Respondent.

(DALVEER BHANDARI J.) ( DELHI HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S. 5(2) Sentence Accused

convicted for offence under S. 5(1) (d) and S. 161 of Penal Code- occurrence took place
23 years back accused undergone agony of criminal proceedings Sentence reduced to
period already undergone.

( Paras 15,16)
( 2000 Cr.L.J.p-1503 (DELHI)

3) Prakash Shankarrao Kamble, Appellant V. State of Maharashtra,

Respondent
(D.G.DESGHPANDE J.) ( BOMBAY HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) , S.5 (1) (d)- Bribery- Proof-

Allegations that accused demanded and accepted bribe from complainant for securing
admission to M.B.A course Defence plea of false implication due to enmity between
 - 11 -

the office bearers of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad ( ABVP ) and accused Not
supported by Evidence No plausible explanation by accused that money was thrust in
his pocket on account of rivalry or enmity Demand and acceptance of bribe by accused
proved Further plea that accused was not entrusted with job of receiving admission
forms for M.B.A course- Not tenable in absence of evidence showing that apart from
working in the Restructuring Unit accused could not be entrusted work of accepting
forms for M.B.A admission conviction and sentence of accused, proper.

( Paras 11,12,16,17,22,23 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. p- 2110 (BOM )

(4) Shivendra Kumar Appellant V. State of Maharashtra, Respondent.

(D.P.MOHAPATRA AND R.P. SHTHI,JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act,. 1947- Sec 5 (1)(d), 5 (2) and 6- Conviction
Appellant who was working as lecturer in Forensic Medicine had asked for a sum of Rs.
5000/- for omitting to mention certain injuries found on the deceased, in the autopsy
report The Anti- corruption Bureau had laid a trap on receiving complain and recovered
tainted currency notes from the pocket of the appellant- His left hand fingers were also
found tainted with the powder- conviction confirmed as sanction was found to be passed
by the competent Authority.

( Paras 4 to 6 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. S.C.p- 4675 )
(2000 A.I.R S.C.p-3079)
(2000 O.C.R. Vol.19 p- 577 )

5) Bipra Das Chakrabarty Appellant V. State of Orissa Respondent.

( R.K. PATRA J.) ( ORISSA HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act, 1947- Sec 5. (2) Penal Code, 1860- Sec. 161
conviction under Allegation that the appellant demanded a bribe from P.W 1 when he
latter wanted payment of arrears due to him from the bank- Trap laid against the
appellant who was caught red-handed while accepting bribe- Explanation of the
appellant regarding the tainted notes an after thought and not accepted- Evidence of
P.Ws not found to suffer from any infirmity The witnesses found to be reliable and
trust worthy conviction can not be found fault with .
( Paras 5 to 8 )
 - 12 -

(B) Criminal Trial Evidence of trap witness Is not tainted as is only interested to
see that the trap laid by him succeeds- Can not be equiated with a partisan witness or an
approver- If this evidence is found to be reliable and trustworthy it can be accepted
without corroboration.

(Para 6 )
Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.

( 2000 O.C.R Vol. 18 p- 385 ( ORI )

6) State of U.P Appellant V. Udai Narayana and another Respondent

(G.B.PATTNAIK & M.B.SHAH JJ) ( SUPREME COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 Secs.8,10,13(2) and Sec.13(1)(d) Penal

Code, Sec.120-B- offence under one accused not being a Public servant whether
could be prosecuted under the P.C. Act. Held, yes.

(Para-6)

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 S.239- Prevention of corruption Act, S

8,10,13(2) and S-13(1)(d) r/w S-120-B of IPC- Discharge Power of the court to
discharge an accused before framing of charge indicated High Court discharge the
accused Held illegal.
(Paras 4 and 6)
(O.C.R. 2000 Vol.18 S.C. p-18)

7) Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke, Appellant V. State of Maharashtra-

Respondant
(Dr. A.S.ANAND C.J.I
R.C. LOHOTI AND
DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ ) (SUPREME COURT)

Penal code (45 of 1860), S-161 Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S-5- Bribery
case- Chemically treated currency notes found lying on pad on table of accused,
recovered Recovery not from person or table drawer of accused- such recovery does not
conclusively lead to inference of acceptance of bribe by accused.

(Para-9 and 10)

(2000 Cr.L.J. 2273 S.C.)
(O.C.R. Vol-19-p-94 S.C.)
 - 13 -

8. Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi V. State of Maharashtra, Respondent.

(K. T. THOMAS AND R.P.SETHI, J.J.) (SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988), S-20(1), S-7- word gratification-
Must be understood to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to public servant who
received it And not reward Fact that Public servant is found in possession of currency
notes smeared with phenolphthalein- sufficient to draw legal presumption under section-
prosecution need not further prove that money was paid to public servant.
(paras 12, 14 )
(B) Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988) S-13(2)- Prevention of corruption Act
(2 of 1947), S-5(2)- Sentence- Reducing below minimum prescribed- special reasons
case was pending before courts since long- Not a special reason for reducing minimum
sentence.
(Para 17, 19)
(A.I.R. 2001, S.C. p-147 )
(Cr.L.J.2001 S.C. p-.175 )
(O.C.R. 2001 Vol.20 S.C. p-211)

9. Vishnu Nagnath Deshmukh Appellant V. State of Maharashtra

Respondent.
(U.C. BANERJEE & K.G.BALAKRISHNAN JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act,1947-S.5(2)r/wS.5(1)(d)-penal code,1860-S.161-

Sentence- Conviction under ,for taking illegal gratification of Rs.10/-Considering the
smallness of the amount involved and the fact of the accused- appellant being in jail for a
period of 4 months, held, sentence of 6 months RI should be reduced to the period of
imprisonment already undergone- Amount of fine of Rs.100 having already been paid,
the same need not be enhanced Criminal Trial-sentence- Reduction of.
(Paras 2,3 )
(S.C.C.2001 Vol.I Part-3 p-345 S.C.)
(Cr.L.J. 2001 S.C.p-483 )
(O.C.R. 2001 Vol.20 S.C.p--321 )

10. Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, Appellant V. State of Orissa, Respondent

(SUPREME COURT )

(A.) Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S-5 Illegal gratification- Acceptance

of Complaint adduced satisfactory evidence to prove that he visited accused Tahasildar
on particular date with applications for mutation- Accused demanded illegal gratification
 - 14 -

from complainant Along with tainted money seized during trap, mutation applications
were also found in possession of accused- Thus defence plea that amount recovered from
the accused was paid by complainant for purchase of mustard oil for R was highly
improbable as according to accused himself, he was not having good relationship with
complainant and therefore Rwould not request complainant to hand over money to
accused for purchase of mustard oil- Concurrent finding that accused accepted tainted
money as illegal gratification can not be interfered with.
(2001 Cr.L.J. S.C.p.-720 )

11. Rambhau and another, Appellants V. State of Maharashtra,

Respondent.
(UMESH C. BANERJEE & K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ) (SUPREME
COURT )

A. Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.13- Criminal misconduct Abetment

of Evidence produced by prosecution that accused was public servant and that he
demanded illegal gratification while discharging his official duties- Co-accused proved to
have played significant role in negotiating on the figure of amount and having notes
exchanged at dictate of accused- Held, co-accused substantially abetted the crime and his
acquittal could not be sustained.
(Para-12)
(2000 Cr.L.J. S.C.p-2343 )
(2001 A.I.R. S.C. p-2120 )

12. M. Palanisamy and another, Appellants V. State, Respondent

(M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM J) (MADRAS HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988), S-7,13 Bribe-Proof- Accused-

Village Administrative Officer, alleged to have demanded money for issuing community
certificates- Evidence on record proving that there was demand of bribe and receipt of
amount by accused- Amount received which was kept in a register by accused recovered
during course of trap- Phenolphthalein test conducted on fingers of accused proved
positive- All details about prosecution case given in sanction and sanctioning authorities
deposing that they applied their mind and granted sanction- Conviction of accused u/s
7,13 can not be interfered with Further sentence imposed being minimum prescribed
under Act- Can not be said to be excessive.
(Paras 13,14,15,16,19 )
(2001 Cr.L.J p-.3892 (Mad))
 - 15 -

13. M.Gopinath,Appellant V.State of A.P. Respondent.

(V.ESWARAIAH,J) (ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),Ss.713(1)(2)-Illegal gratification-

Demand and receipt-Accused demanded Rs.800/- from complainant for clearing gratuity
bills of her husband-Trap laid-Notes tainted with phenolphthalein powder recovered from
pant pocket of accused by trap party-Papers relating to gratuity bills of Complainant
found in his pocket-There was no interest or enmity on part of trap party-Their action was
fair and reasonable-Trap proved beyond all reasonable doubts in presence of independent
witness-Guilt of accused proved beyond doubt-Conviction proper.

(Paras 7,9,10)
(2001 Cr.L.J p-.4465(AND))

14. Dhandapani, Petitioner V. State, Respondent

(M.KARAPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ) (MADRAS HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S-5- Illegal gratification- Proof-

Accused working as Asst. Public Prosecutor alleged to have demanded and accepted
Rs.200/- from complainant as gratification for conducting his case properly- Testimony
of witnesses that when complainant handed over money, accused received same and
counted notes and put it in right side coat pocket- Phenolphthalein test conducted and
same proved positive- Evidence of witnesses relating to receipt of money also
corroborated by fact of recovery of amount from coat pocket of accused-No explanation
was attempted to be made by accused at time of trap- Explanation belatedly given by
accused to court in the form of suggestions and statement under S-313 Cr.P.C. and
through the evidence of defence witness is not only improbable but also inconsistent-
Conviction of accused, proper.
(2002 Cr.L.J. Noc 104 (Mad))

15. Ajit Singh, Petitioner V. State Respondents.

(ARUN MISHRA, J. ) (MADHY PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S-5(1)(d), 4- Illegal gratification-Trap

case- Accused, a Patwari alleged to have demanded Rs.100/- as bribe for demarcating
land-currency notes found in possession of accused- phenolphthalein test was also
positiveNo explanation for its possession given by accused- Instead he denied its
 - 16 -

recovery-Presumption that same was accepted as motive or reward for doing official act
arises- Conviction of accused, not improper.
(Paras 19,26,27,28,30)
(2002Cr.L.J. p-2256 (Mad))

16. Subash Parbat Sonvane V. State of Gujurat, Respondent

( M.B.SHAH,BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH
& H.K.SEMA JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988), S-13(1)(d)(i)- Criminal misconduct by

Public Servant- Bribe taking-Mere acceptance of money- Not sufficient for convicting
accused under S-13(1)(d)(i)-There must be evidence or record that accused obtained
any amount by corrupt or illegal means- Compliances not supporting prosecution case on
the points of demand and acceptance- From evidence of panch witness it was not clear
that there was any demand by accused and amount was paid to him by complainant-
Accused acquitted.
(Para-6)
(2002 Cr.L.J. (S.C.) p-2787)

17. Ram Avtar Sah Appellant V. State of Bihar, Respondent

(MRS. INDU PRABHA SINGH, J.) (PATNA HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S-5(2)-Acceptance of bribe-Proof-Land

purchased by complainant under sale deed-For recording his name in records of rights-
Accused-Surveyor demanded money-Demand of money and transaction of money took
place in shop, in busy place-No independent witnesses, however examined by
prosecution to support its case- Moreover, name of complainant was found to be
recorded in record of rights before the incident of acceptance of bribe-Genesis of
occurrence, doubtful- Further sale deed in favour of complainant alleged to be seized
from custody of accused not produced on record- In circumstances accused entitled to
benefit of doubt.
(Para-7)
(2002 Cr.L.J. p-3899 (PAT))

18. State, Appellant V. K.S.Subramanian, Respondent

(M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.) (MADRAS HIGH COURT)

(E) Penal code (45 of 1960), S-161,165 Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947),S-
5(2),5(1)(d)-Demand of illegal gratification- Proof- Compliance was working as catering
Inspector at Railway Station and was facing departmental action for unauthorized
 - 17 -

absence- Enquiry Officer sending report to accused who was Divisional commercial
superintendent for forwarding same to punishing authority- Accused taking this
opportunity and demanding VCR as illegal gratification from complainant for ensuring
that lesser punishment would be imposed- Trap said-Accused received VCR in presence
of trap witnesses-Demand and acceptance proved-presumption under S-4(1) can be
drawn- Accused liable to be convicted for offences alleged.
(Paras 55,56,78 )

.(F) Penal code (45 of 1860), S-161,165- Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S-
5(2), 5(1)(d)-Sentence-Reduction-Accused was facing trial from year 1989 and was
acquitted in year 1992-In year 2001 acquittal set aside and accused convicted-Ends of
justice held would be met by imposing sentence till rising of court and by directing
accused to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.
(Paras 84,85 )
(2002 Cr.L.J. p-4027 (MAD))

19. Mukhdeo Singh Appellant V.State of Bihar, Respondent.

(HARI SHANKAR PRASAD,J) (JHARKHAND HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947),S.5(2)(d)-Demand of bribe-Trap laid-

Evidence of independent witness-Reliability-Witnesses to trap were officers in their
respective departments. No material brought on record to show that they were interested
persons or influenced in any why by C.B.I. or I.O. or not independent-Trap laid by I.O.
was not in any way due to personal grudge or any animosity against delinquent officer-
Allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe proved by other corroborative, Oral as well
as documentary evidence on record-Conviction of accused, proper.
(Paras 10,16 )
(2003 Cr.L.J. P-626 (JHA))

20. Puttaraje Urs Applant V. State of Karnataka, Respondent.

(M. P. CHINNAPPA, J.) (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988), S-7, 13(1) and (2) Demand of illegal
gratification by Public servant-Conviction-Overwhelming evidence adduced by
prosecution to substantiate its case-Witnesses, mostly disinterested persons, fully
supported prosecution case Though there were minor discrepancies, their evidence was
tainted with any doubt- All materials were looked into by competent authority while
 - 18 -

granting sanction- Plea that there was no application of mind by him- Not tenable-
Conviction and sentence- No interference-called for.
(Paras 12,14)
(2003 Cr.L.J. p-1148 (KAR))

21. Shiv Prasad Pandey Appellant V. C.B.I. through Director, New

Delhi, Respondent
(N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P.SINGH,JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

(B) Border Security Force Act (47 of 1968),S-80,81,77 Prevention of corruption Act
(49 of 1988)S-7,13(2)-Constitution of India, Art 20(3)- Acceptance of illegal
gratification-Offence committed by appellant member of Police Service while
deployed to serve in Border Security Force-Trial-Criminal court or Security Force
Court-Whether has jurisdiction-Section of 80 of Border Security Force Act applies only
to such person who is serving in Border Security Force (BSF) Appellant repatriated to
parent Department, i.e. Police service-complaint lodged against him after expiry of six
months from date of his repatriation to Police service-Sections 80,81 of BSF Act does not
apply-Authority under BSF Act has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against
appellant-Special Court CBI has jurisdiction to entertain complaint against appellant-No
question of second trial by CBI Court arises when punishment recommended by
Inspector General was not accepted by competent authority under BSF Act.

(2003 Cr.L.J S.C.p-1710(S.C.))

22. K.Narasimhachary Appellant V. State, Inspector of Police, Anti-

corruption Bureau Cuddapah District, Respondent.
(L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J)(ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of corruption Act (1988), Ss.7, 11 and 1-Offence under Trap
evidence- If trap is successful, version of prosecution gains credence- However, other
relevant circumstances have to be considered.
. Evidence Act (1872), S-3.
(Para 15)
(2003 Cr.L.J. p-3315 (AND PRA)

23. M.Ramachandran, Appellant V. The State, Respondent

(P.D. DINKARAN, J. ) (MADRAS HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss 7,13(2)- Illegal gratification- Proof-
Allegation that accused persons, Sub-Inspector or Survey and Surveyor demanded and
 - 19 -

accepted Rs.500/- from complainant as bribe for re-surveying land and issuing separate
patta- Evidence of complainant, trap witnesses and other documentary evidence
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by accused persons is trustworthy and reliable-
Defence plea of alibi not tenable- Absence of independence witness, not fatal-
Prosecution established that main accused in discharge of his official duty made a
demand of Rs.500/- from complainant as an illegal gratification-Conviction of main
accused, proper-Further prosecution established acceptance of bribe by other accused on
behalf of main accused-Hence, he is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under
section 7 r/w 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d).
(Paras 19, 6, 20, 4, 21)
(2003 Cr.L.J. p-3376 (MAD))

24. Punjabrao Appellant V. State of Maharashtra Respondent

(G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C.BANERJEE, J.J.)(SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ,1947-S.5(1)(d) r/w S.5(2)-Penal code,1860-S.161-

Illegal gratification-Where accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged
amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said
to have been established-The accused can establish his defence by preponderance of
probability-If the explanation offered by him under section 313 Cr. P.C. is found to be
reasonable then it can not be thrown away merely on the ground that he did not offer the
said explanation at the time when the amount was seized- On facts, explanation offered
by accused found to be probable, reasonable and acceptable by trial court- High Court
erred is disbelieving the same without examine the reasons advanced by the trial court-
High Courts conclusion based on misreading of relevant evidence-Reversal of the
acquittal by High Court set aside-Criminal procedure code, 1973-Ss.386 and 378-
Interfere by High Court with acquittal-impropriety.
(Para-3)
(2003 O.C.R.(25) S.C.p- 824 )

25. State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant V. V.Vasudeva Rao, Respondent.

(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

(B) Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S. 4-word gratification- Meaning of

To be gathered from literal meaning to give pleasure or satisfaction to.
(C) Prevention of corruption Act (2 of 1947), S.5(2)-Sentence- Case involving
acceptance of illegal gratification-No scope for any leniency in sentence-Considering age
 - 20 -

of accused(75 years)-Sentence of two years R.I. reduced to one year without interfering
with fine imposed-Fact that case is pending since past 14 years-Not a special reason to
reduce sentence below minimum of one year prescribed.
(Paras 31, 32 )
(2004 Cr.L.J.S.C-p-6200 )

26. T.Shankar Prasad, Appellant V. State of Andhra Pradesh, Respondent.

(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss.7, 13- Bribery-Trap case-
Allegations that accused officer and his junior assistant working in Commercial Tax
Department demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.300/- from Complainant, a
dealer in grocery articles for way bills- Evidence showing that accused officer directed
money to be paid to his junior assistant Evidence of Complainant and trap witness
established recovery of money from accused junior assistant Involvement of both
accused established by prosecution evidence Presumption can be raised that accused
persons accepted illegal gratification-Defence plea that amount was paid towards tax-
Not tenable as there was no tax due and on contrary complainant was entitled to some
refund-Conviction of accused persons, proper.

(Paras 23,24)
( 2004Cr.L.J. p-884(S.C)

27. State of A.P. Appellant v. K.Punardana Rao,Respondent.

(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & B.N.SRIKRISHNA,JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss.13(1)(d),13(2)-Bribe-

Demand And acceptance-Proof-Tainted money recovered from possession of accused in
trap laid by deptt- Phenolphthalein test conducted on his hands, pyjama and bed cover
proved to be positive-Explanation offered by him highly improbable-Evidence of
defence witness not reliable-There was no enmity alleged against complainant- He is an
independent witness having two business concerns and matters relating to tax come
within jurisdiction of accused- Officer for which bribe was demanded-There was
perverse appreciation of evidence and serious miscarriage of justice by High Court and
order acquitting accused erroneous-Accused liable to be convicted.

(2004,O.C.R.(29) S.Cp-404)
(2004,A.I.R S.C.p-4194)
(2004 Cr.L.J.p-4191(S.C)
 - 21 -

28. State of Andhra Pradesh V. T.Venkateswara Rao

(N.SANTOSH HEDGE AND B.P.SINGH, JJ )(SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act 1947-Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2)-Respondent while

working as Commissioner, Municipality demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1400/- to
show official favour to award work order to P.W.-1, a successful tenderer in a contract-
conviction recorded by trial court set aside by High Court in appeal-State appeal-Contract
for which P.W.1 had offered bid was only under consideration and was not finally
accepted hence question of awarding work order had not arisen- High court was justified
it its conclusion that no reasonable man would have agreed to accept bribe in presence
of P.W.2 who had a grievance against respondent-Findings of High Court were based on
material on record and no perversity was involved in conclusion- Though P.W.4 and
P.W.5 were independent witness that ipso facto would not establish prosecution case-
Explanation given by respondent by way of defence and supported by evidence could not
be rejected as improbable or far fetched- Acquittal could not be interfered with.
(Para-6)
(2004,O.C.R.27 S.C.701)
(2004 A.I.R. S.C. P-1728)

29. G.L. Raval V. State of Gujurat

(N.SANTOSH HEDGE AND B.P.SINGH, JJ )(SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act,1947-Section 5(2)-Appellant- working as a Senior

Clerk in office of Licensing Board accepted Rs.101/- as illegal gratification for clearing
T.A., D.A. bills of complainant-Conviction by Courts below- Appeal- Contention that
punch witnesses joined by Police were working under complainants father-Evidence
however did not support contention-Panch witnesses were working in Health Deptt. of
State Government where as father of complainant was working in Health Department of
Municipal Corporation and two offices were not situated in same premises-No suggestion
was made either to witnesses or to I.O. that witnesses were in any way associated with
complainants father- Conviction and sentence of one year imprisonment-could not be
interfered with.
(Para 6)
(2004, OCR V- 28 S.C.p--71)
(2004, A.I.R. S.C. p-2170)
 - 22 -

30. Varada Rama Mohana Rao Appellant V. State of Andhra Pradesh

Respondent
(N.SANTOSH HEDGE AND B.P.SINGH, JJ )(SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act, 1947- Section 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)-

Appellant working as Addl. Public Prosecutor allegedly accepted gratification for the
sum of Rs.1500/- from P.W.1 for effectively pursuing a criminal complaint-According to
appellant P.W.1 concealed the currency notes along with case papers which he brought to
the appellant- Phenolphthalein powder was found in the inner lining of the shirt pocket of
the appellant which falsify the plea of the appellant in accidentally touching the pocket as
the same could have been possible if the tainted money was kept inside his pocket-Held,
defence plea was rejected and the finding of the courts below in accepting the prosecution
version was approved.
( Paras-9,10,11 )
( 2004 O.C.R V.28 S.Cp-185)

31. State of A. P. Appellant V. R.Jeevaratnam Respondent.

(S.N.VARIAVA & ARIJIT PASAYAT ) (SUPREME COURT )

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988- Sections 7,13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) & 20(1)-
Demanding and accepting bribe-Presumption where Public servant accepts gratification
other than legal remuneration-Respondent functioning as Secretary of Visakhapatnam
Port trust, was member of Tender Committee-Prosecution case that respondent demanded
Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant in order to clear his file-Complainant was told that a sum
of Rs.10,000/-was to be paid as advance-Complainant reported the matter to CBI who
laid a trap- Respondent was caught coming out of a hotel room with marked currency
totaling Rs,10,000/- in a briefcase which was carried by respondent-P.W.2 was an
absolutely independent witness who had acted as a panch witness-Prosecution version
supported by deposition of P.W.2-Whether High Court was justified in acquitting
respondent of the charge-Held, No.
(Paras7,8,and11)
(2004,O.C.R(29) S.C.-P-50)

32. A. Abdul Kaffar, Appellant V. State of Kerala Respondent

(N.SANTOSH HEDGE AND B.P.SINGH, JJ )(SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act,1988-Sections 7,13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2)-

Penal code, 1860- Sections 201 and 477-A-Illegal gratification- Sales Tax-cum-
 - 23 -

Agricultural Income Tax Officer(accused) receiving Rs.10,000/- for bringing down the
proposed assessment of turnover of P.W.1 from Rs.8 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs- Defence
version that the said amount was received as advance payment of sales tax due from
P.W.1 for which an official receipt was also issued- P.W.1 denying the said fact Held
,failure of accused to mention the said fact to I.O at the first available opportunity
showed that the defence taken was not genuine-The only conclusion available was that
the receipt was prepared by the accused after he was released on bail- Conviction under
Sections 7,13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) P.C Act and Section 201 IPC, upheld-Offence
under Sec 477-A IPC though made out, question as to acquittal recorded by Courts below
in respect thereof not gone into in absence of any appeal by State.
(Paras 6,7)
(2004 O.C.R (29) S.C.p-651)

33. State of West Bengal Appellant V. Kailash Chandra Pandey

Respondent.
(D.M. DHARMADHIKARI & A.K.MATHUR,JJ)(SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act,1988-Sec-7-Demand and acceptance of

money by Deputy General Manager(Airport) to facilitate passing of bill- Conviction
reversed by HighCourt-Susceptibility-PW3 was awarded a cleaning contract at Calcutta
Airport for two years-Complaint lodged that accused, demanded illegal money for
passing to bills-PW3 had submitted a bill for a sum of Rs.1,39,000/- before the accused-
Accused allegedly directed PW 3 to make payment of Rs.5,000/- Otherwise he would not
pass the bill-A trap party arrange on complaint of PW3-Money handed over by PW-3 to
accused and he allegedly pocketed the money- I.O. seized the money-Trial court
convicted accused respondent under section 7 of the Act on appeal, High Court acquitted
the accused on ground that currency notes were not sent for chemical examination,
accused did not appeal the signature on seizure memo, etc. sufficient, cogent and reliable
evidence was available on record which fully established guilt of the accused-Whether
High court was justified in acquitting the accused by reappreciating the evidence-Held,
No.
(Para-10)
(2005, A.I.R. S.C. P-119)
(2004, O.C.R.(29) S.C.-832)
(2005,Cr.L.J. S.C.P-135)
 - 24 -

34. V.Radhakrishna Reddy Appellant v. State of Andhra Pradesh,

Respondent .
(B.P.SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR,JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),Ss.7,13-Illegal gratification-Proof-Trap

Case-Accused, General Manager of District Industries Centre-Allegedly demanded bribe
from complainant for granting him requisite certificate-Accused not denying fact that
complainant gave him sum of Rs.150/-which was recovered from his pocket-Explanation
given by accused that said amount was given to him towards registration fees not
convincing as the fees was only a sum of Rs-50/- and it was required to be paid in
treasury under challan and not to General Manager-Explanation that excess amount was
paid to him in advance for two more applications which were yet to be made also not
convincing-Fact whether Complainant was a genuine applicant or not was immaterial in
judging guilt of accused. Conviction proper.

(Paras 10 to 14)
( 2005 Cr.L.J. p-1 411(S.C)
(2004, A.I.R. S.C p-807)
(2005, OCR(30)-S.C.P-534)

35. Ganga Kumar Srivastava Appellant v. State of Bihar, Respondents.

( B.N. AGRAWAL & TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

(c) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.5- Penal Code ( 45 of

1860), S.161- Bribe taking Proof- Defence of Accused Appellant- that bush-shirt was
hanging on Peg when complainant came, appellant was at that point of time asleep in
next room- Father of appellant went to wake him up and at that point of time notes wear
thrust into pocket of hanging bush-shirt, which appellant wore when he came to outer
room as he was in his ganji and lungi- Defence of appellant that notes were planted by
complainant in presence of watcher- Probable- Court can not depend on oral evidence
which is something of dubious character to decide fate of public servant- Fact that
Criminal case was initiated by appellant against complainant for theft of electricity- And,
therefore, appellant was put in trouble, also probable- Conviction liable to be set aside.

( 2005 A.I.R. S.C. p-3123 )

( 2005 Cr.L.J p-3454( SC))
 - 25 -

36. Ranghothan Rao, Appellant V. State of Andhra Pradesh, Respondent.

(Dr. G. YETHIRAJULU, J ) (ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COPURT)

Prevention of corruption Act(49 of 1988),Ss.7,13- Illegal gratification-

Proof-Trap case-Accused allegedly demanded bribe for doing official favour to
complainant Defence of accused that accused and complainant were knowing each other
and amount received by him was towards discharge of debt due to his wife-No such
defence taken by accused immediately after recovery of money from him while recording
post trap panchanama-Witness deposing about acquaintance between accused and
complainant not saying anything about money transaction between complainant and wife
of accused-In absence of any details his evidence was not worthy of credence-No
evidence by accused as to whether his wife was doing money leading business, when the
amount was taken and whether it was oral debt-Defence version not proved-Conviction
proper.
(Paras 31,33,37,38)
(2005 Cr.L.J. P-3650 (ANDH PRA))

37. State of A.P. Appellant V. S.Janardhana Rao Respondent.

(B.N.AGRAWAL & A.K.MATHUR,JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act,1988-Section 7,13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2)-Judicial

Officer demanding and accepting illegal gratification for recording acquittal of P.W.1-
Acquittal by High Court-Sustainability-Prosecution case that A 1, a member of Andhra
Pradesh Higher Judicial service and posted as Metropolitan Sessions Judge, demanded a
sum of Rs.6 lacs by way of illegal gratification which was later reduce to Rs.3 lacs for
showing official favour to P.Ws 1 & 2 who were accused in a Sessions case which was
pending trial in his Court- Demand of money was made through P.W.21 who was a
constable attached to the Court of A1-P.W.21 examined as an approved P.W.1 obtained
permission of High Court and arranged a trap party- Amount of Rs.3 lacs paid to wife of
A1 and the same was recovered by the trap party at the instance of son of A1-After
payment of illegal gratification to wife of A1, P.W.21 informed A1 about the same on
phone and A1 was found meeting and entertaining P.W.1-Statement of P.W.21
corroborated in all material particulars by P.Ws 1 and 2-Prosecution succeeded in
proving its case by credible evidence-Trial Court recorded conviction of A1-Judgement
of High Court-Acquitting him is not sustainable. Result- Appeal allowed.
(2005, O.C.R.(30) S.C.-57 )
 - 26 -

38. Union of India through Inspector, CBI Appellant v. Purnandu Biswas

Respondent
(S.B. SINHA & R.V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act,1988- Section 13(1)(d)r/w13(2)-Respondent

working as Surveyor in Merchantile Marine Department of Govt.of India allegedly
demanded Rs.50,000/- as illegal gratification from p.w.3 for giving clearance certificate
in respect of the Vessel- He was apprehended in a trap laid by Inspector P.W.8 in his
house after he had accepted the amount from P.W.3- Trial court convicted respondent but
High Court in appeal set aside conviction- State Appeal- Admittedly defects in the vessel
were removed by the owner after inspection vessel by respondent and Vessel was
released- Demand for gratification was alleged to have continued on premise that if
amount was not paid other vessels would be detained- charge had not be framed
accordingly- Trap was laid on 17.7.1992 i.e much prior to bringing of other vessel on
19.7.1992 in the harbour- p.w.3 did not say that accused threatened that he would retain
another vessel of which he was the agent if said amount of Rs.50,000/-was not paid-
Average income of harbour was only Rs.62/- and after joining of respondent within a
period of four months,income had gone upto Rs.47,642/-Hand bag in which p.w.3 carried
the money was not seized or subjected to phenolphthalein test Suitcase in which
accused was alleged to have kept the money was also not subjected to phenolphthalein
test- P.W.8 showed over-zealousness in taking search of house of respondent without
holding any search warrant- p.w.3 had been bearing grudge against respondent-
Acquittal called for no interference.

( 2005 O.C.R (32) S.Cp-869)

 - 27 -

Disproportionate Assets ( D.A)

1. J. Prem and another, petitioner V. State Respondent.

( A. RAMAMURTHI . J) ( MADRAS HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 1988 ) S. 13 (1) (e) Explanation Offence of

criminal misconduct Owning property disproportionate to known source of income
Receipts of income not intimated as required by law It can be held that there is prima
facie case to proceed against petitioners.
( Para 12)

(B) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) Ss. 239 and 401 Charges framed for offences under
prevention of corruption Act Accused filing petition for discharge invoking S. 239 and
inviting finding against them Revision petition against order is maintainable- Accusing
finger pointed against both accused High Court can not interfere with order.
( Para- 18 )
( Cr. L.J. 2000 ( Madras ) p- 619 )

2) State of Madhya Pradesh V. Shri Ram Singh Respondent

(K.T.THOMAS AND R.P SETHI J.J) ( SUPREME COURT )

(C) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), Ss. 17, 13 (1) (e) possessing
property disproportionate to known sources of income Investigation By Inspector
authorized by Superintendent of Police- Order of authorization showing application of
mind by superintendent of Police Merely because authorization order was in typed
proforma Investigation and consequent proceedings could not be quashed.
( Paras 13,14,15 )
( A.I.R 2000 S.C p- 870 )
(Cr.L.J. 2000 S.C p- 1401 )

3. Mahavir Prasad Shrivastava, Applicant V State of M.P Non

Applicant.
(R.P.GUPTA J) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 13 (1) (e) Charge of possessing

assets disproportionate to known sources of income charge sheet prima facie making
out offence No interference at pre- trial stage can be made.
( Paras 8, 9 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. p- 1232 ( M.P )
 - 28 -

4 Subash Khasrate, Appellant V. State of M.P. Respondent.

(S.B. SAKRIKAR J.) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S.5 (1)(a) Possession of

property disproportionate to income Allegations that purchase of Plot by accused, a
Forest Ranger in name of his wife was benami- statement of witness that said plot was
purchased by father of accused s wife cannot be discarded only on ground that said
witness turned hostile failure on part of prosecution to prove that said plot was
purchased benami out of funds of accused It can not be said that said plot and house
constructed thereon was acquired by the accused in excess of his legal and known
sources of income conviction of accused under S. 5 (1) (e), not proper.

( Paras 15, 18, 19 )

( Cr.L-J 2000 p- 1178 ( M.P ))

(5) State of Madhya Pradesh V. Mohan Lal Soni, Respondent.

(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL JJ.)
(SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act, 1988- Sec 13 (1) (e) read with sec. 13(2)-
charge framed by the special court set aside by the High court Appeal by State Held
at the time of framing charge, the court has to primafacie consider existence of sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused If the evidence which is proposed to be
produced by the prosecution to prove its case, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged by cross- examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if or does not make
out the particular offence, charge can be quashed.

( 2000 Cr. L.J S.C. p- 3504)

(O.C.R 2000 Vol- 19 S.C p- 425 )
(2000 A.I.R S.C.p-2583)

6) Seeta Hemchandra Shashithal and another, Appellants V.

State of Maharashtra and others Respondents
With
Niranjan Hemchandra Shashithal , Appellant V. State of Maharashtra and another
Respondents.
AND
Anuradha Niranjan Shashithal, Appellant Vr. State of Maharashtra and others.

(c) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) S.13 (2)- Abetment of offence-

Appellants, two ladies, mother and mother- in- law of main accused, a public servant
 - 29 -

aged about 83 years and 81 years respectively Alleged to have abetted public servant in
acquiring assets disproportionate to kis known sources of income However materials
on record are too insufficient to prove, the said allegation against said ladies Trial
against them having no reasonable prospect of their conviction Further trial is not likely
to end within one or two years- In circumstances it would be unfair and unreasonable to
compel said ladies to stand such trial- prosecution against them, quashed.
Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S. 482.
( Para 22 )
( Cr. L.J. 2001 S.C.p- 1242 )

7. N.P Jharia, Appellant V. State of Madhya Pradesh, Respondent

( S.P.KHARE J. ) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S.5 (1) (e) Public Servant-
Possession of pecuniary resources and property disproportionate to his known sources of
income Assets immovable and movables found in possession during check period were
over Rs. 11 lakhs Amounts said to be received from father by will or as gift, not proved
Accused not able to account satisfactorily that his savings out of earnings of himself
and his wife could be more than Rs. 3 lakhs- Disproportionately could not be explained-
Held assets were acquired by illegitimate means- Conviction sustained.
( Paras 15,16,17,18 )

(C) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) , S. 173 (8)- Criminal misconduct of public servant-
Final report submitted by investigating agency- Reinvestigation of charges on availing
permission from court and sanction for prosecution from competent authority Not legal
barred.
( Para 19 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J.p- 3212 ( M.P. )

8) Mahendra Lal Das Appellant V. State of Bihar and others

Respondents.

Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 Sec. 5 (2) read with Sec. 5 (1) (e) Delay of more
than 13 years in obtaining sanction to prosecute appellant for keeping disproportionate
wealth of about Rs. 50,600/- Held, every delay may not be taken as causing prejudice to
the accused, but in ordinate delay can be taken as presentive proof of prejudice- No
 - 30 -

useful purpose would be served to put the appellant at trial at this belated stage-
proceedings quashed.
( Paras 5 to 10 )

( 2001 Cr. L.J.S.C p 4718 )

( 2001 A.I.R S.C.p-2989)
( 2001 O.C.R V-21 S.C. p-680)

9) P. Ramachandra Rao Appellant V. State of Karnataka, Respondent.

( S.P.BHARUCHA C.J.I ( SUPREME COURT )

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI
R.C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE
DORAISWAMY RAJU,
MRS RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT JJ )

(B) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S. 378- Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S.

13 (1) (e) , (2) Accused charged for offence under Trial however did not- Commence
till period of 2 years Accused acquitted Appeal Against acquittal- High Court not
only condined delay of 55 days in filing appeal but allowed appeal without noticing the
accused Held, not proper Matter remitted to High court for hearing afresh after
noticing accused and consistently with principles of law laid down in instant case.

(Para -32 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J. S.C.p- 2547 )

10) Jagan M., Shesadri , Appellant V. State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent

( A.S.ANAND, C.J.I, R.C.LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN JJ )
(SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) Ss. 30, 13 (1) (e), 13(2) Prevention
of Corruption Act ( 1947 ), Ss. 5(1) (d), (e),. 5(2) Effect of repeal of 1947 Act- charge
framed under 1947 Act Legality 1947 Act was in operation when offence was
committed and at time when F.I.R was lodged charged framed Under S.5 of 1947 Act
can not be substituted by S. 13 of 1988- Since S.30(2) of 1988 Act does not substitute
S.13 of 1988 Act in place of S. 5 of 1947 Act Section 13 is materially different from S.
5 of 1947 Act- Accused can not be deemed to have been charged under Section 13 of
1988 Act.
 - 31 -

(c) Prevention of corruption Act ( 1947 ), S.5 (2)- Prevention of corruption Act ( 49
of 1988 ) S. 13 (1)(e), Expln.- Appellant charged for offence under S. 5 (1)(e), of 1988
Act- Source of receipt of amount Explanation offered by appellant regarding source of
receipt of amounts which were canvassed to be beyond known sources of income
Prosecution evidence clearly supporting explanation given by appellant- Burden of
explaining sources of these amounts discharged by appellant- Non mention of amounts
in property statement of appellant, immaterial - Explanation to S. 13 (1)(e) of 1988 Act
can not be read as `an explanation to S. 5(1)(e) of 1947 Act.
( Para 8 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J. S.C. p- 2982 )
( 2002 A.I.R. S.C. p- 2399)

(11) M Seeramulu, Appellant V. State of A.P, Respondents.

( L.NARASIMHA REDDTY,J ) ( AND HRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 13- Conviction under case relating to

alleged disproportionate assets prosecution has to establish that the various items which
it attributes to the Public Servant are held by him directly or even indirectly Items
included in list of assets- Ownershi;p in respect of these items accepted by prosecution on
the basis of certain assumptions- Even the Investigating Officer was not sure about the
ownership of the appellant vis- a vis the said items- Appellant did not hold any assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income- conviction liable to be set aside.

( Para 14 )
( 2003 Cr.L.J. p- 2956 ( AND PRA)

12. State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant V. Awadh Kishore Gupta and

others, Respondents.
( DIORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT,JJ ) ( SUPREME
COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S.13 (1) (e)- Acquisition of

disproportionate assets by public servant- Expression known sources of income in S.
13(1)(e) Does not mean sources known to accused Burden is cast on accused not only
to offer plausible explanation as to acquisition of large wealth But also to satisfy Court
that explanation is worthy acceptance Term Income - Meaning of.

( 2004 Cr. L.J. p- 598 ( S.C )

 - 32 -

13. Premananda Panda Petitioner V. State of Orissa & another,opposite

parties.
(P.K.TRIPATHY,J) (SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988- Section 13 (2) r/w section 13(1)(e)-Special Judge

directed for attachment of fixed deposits standing in the name of the accused and his
family members to the tune of Rs.36 lakhs and making it first charge in favour of Income
Tax Department for realization of arrear tax dues-Matter challenged before the Honble
Court- Honble Court maintaining the order of attachment directed the Court below to
consider the application afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

( 2004,O.C.R. (28) p-729)

( 2004,Cr.L.J p-3642 (ORI)

14. C.S. Krishnamurthy Appellant V. State of Karnataka,Respondent

( P.VENKATARAMA REDDI & A.K. MATHUR.JJ)
( SUPREME COURT)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S.5- Possession of assets

disproportionate to known sources of income-Offence committed nine years back-Plea
taken that after so many years it would not be advisable to proceed with matter- Held, it
is matter of corruption and Court can not give any latitude in such matters.
( Para 13)

( 2005 A..I.R.S.C p-2790)

( 2005, Cr.L.J. p-2145 (S.C)
( 2005, O.C.R.(31) S.C. p- 308)

15. M.Kishan Appellant V. State,Respondent.

(G.YETHIRAJULU, J) (ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S.13(1)(e)- Offence of

acquiring assets disproportionate to known sources of income- Proof- Accused had
purchased properties with his money in name of his wife and Brother-in-law-Seizure of
documents from his house coupled with non-examination of wife of accused to prove
source of income established this fact- Accused did not dispute seizure of incriminating
documents from his house during search by ACB officials- In absence of sufficient
evidence,plea of accused that his wife was getting income and was having source of
income is not tenable- He could not show that various properties were purchased by his
 - 33 -

wife from out of her income- Conviction of accused is therefore proper- His sentence of
R.I. for 3 years is however reduced to R.I for 1 year.
( paras 33,41,43 )
( 2005, Cr.L.J.p-2103 (AND PRA)

16. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Others Appellants V.

Sarvesh Berry Respondent.

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 Section 13(1)(e)- Known sources of

Income- Meaning- Expression relates to sources which are within the knowledge of
authorities and not within the knowledge of the accused- Onus is on accused to prove that
the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income.
( 2005, O.C.R (32) S.C.p-813)
 - 34 -

Sanction for Prosecution

1. Ram Swaroop Rathore, Appellant V State of M.P Respondent.
(R.S GARG J.) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), Ss. 7, 13 and 19 Sanction to

prosecute legality Accused can not claim acquittal on ground of irregularity in
granting sanction.
( Para- 9)
(2000 Cr. L.J 1882 ( M.P ))

2. V.P Seth, Applicant V. State of Madhya Pradesh Non- applicant

( R.P. GUPTA J.) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ), S.

197 Sanction for prosecution Necessity Compulsorily retired public servant
Sought to be prosecuted under S. 120-B a penal code and S. 13 (1) (d) (ii) read with S.
13(2) of Act of 1988 Sanction for prosecution under s. 197 of Cr. P.C of S. 19 of the
Act is not necessary.
( Paras 7, 8, 12 )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19- criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S.

197 Sanction for prosecution Govt. servant who is petitioner employed as
Managing Director of Semi Govt. corporation can not be said to be an employee of State
or central Govt. for purpose of attracting S. 191 of Act or S. 197 of Cr. P.C.
( Para 13 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. 1767 ( M.P )

3. Shivendra Kumar Appellant V. State of Maharashtra Respondents.

(D.P MOHAPATRA AND R . P SETHI J.J.) ( SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) S. 6 Authority to grant sanction

Section 6 (1) (b) does not specify any particular officer as competent authority
Secretary, Medical Education Deptt. passed / signed order of sanction of prosecution
against accused Lectutrer in Forensic medicine of Govt. Medical College- Sanction order
is valid. ( Para 11 )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) S. 6- Constitution of India Art- 166-

Sanction of prosecution against Lecturers of Medical College Medical Education Deptt.
 - 35 -

is controlling Deptt. of State Govt. Medical Education Deptt. and not the Law and
Justic Deptt. is authority competent to grant sanction.

( Para- 13 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. S.C p- 4675)
( 2000 A.I.R S.C p- 3079 )

4) D.R.Lekhera, Applicant V. State of M.P. Non- Applicant.

(R.P GUPTA J.) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19- Sanction for prosecution

Competent authority- Delinquent, a public servant in Irrigation Department- sanction
granted by Secretary of Law Deptt- Not invalid as Secretary of Law Deptt. is
authorized under Rules to direct removal of petitioner or dismiss him from service.

(Para 8 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. 4795 ( M.P ))

5) Gopa Boriha Appellant V. Republic of India Respondent

(P.K.MOHANTY J) ( ORISSA HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 Sec. 19 Sanction Criminal

procedure Code, 1973- Sec. 197- Sanction for prosecution Whether necessary for one
who had ceased to be a public servant on the date cognizance was taken Held sanction
not required since on the date cognizance was taken the accused had ceased to be a public
servant conviction not interfered with.

( 2000 O.C.R Vol. 18 p- 728 ( ORI )

6) Ajit Kumar Pattanaik Appellant V.Republic of India Respondent.

( P.K.PATRA J ) ( ORISSA HIGH COURT )

(c) Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 Section (5) (2) Sanction- Accorded after
perusal of documents, reports and extracts of statements of witness and being satisfied
that there were grounds for prosecution- Nothing elicited in cross examination to show
that there was non application of mind- Sanction was valid.

( Para-16)
(2000 O.C.R Vol. 19 p-539 (ORI)
 - 36 -

7) Laljibhai Shivshankar Trivedi, Petitioner V. State of Gujarat,

Respondent.
( D.C SRIVASTAVA J ) ( GUJARAT HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Sanction for prosecution-

Interference in revision on ground of error or irregularity in sanction Not permissible
unless such error or irregularity has occasioned failure of justice
( Para 15 )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Sanction for prosecution-

Validity- Petitioner appointed initially by District Collector was transferred to Panchayat
Department on post of Talati-cum- Mantri- Both District Development Officer and
Deputy District Development Officer had concurrent powers of appointment and removal
of petitioner on date of commission of offence- sanction granted by any one of them is
valid.
( Paras 25,26,27 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J.p- 833 ( GUJ ))

8) Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Petitioner V. State and another, Opposite

Parties
( JAGADISH BHALLA J.) ( ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT )

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ), Ss. 197, 482- Prevention of corruption Act ( 49

of 1988 ) S. 19 Sanction to prosecute- Public Servant accused of embezzlement of
huge amount of public money- Case registered for offence under corruption Act and
penal code- Offences under both laws were related to each other- Compressive sanction
for offences sought- State Government after considering materials or record declined to
grant sanction- It could be said that sanction was refused for both offences- Subsequent
charged of stand by Government and accord of sanction for offence under penal code
Would amount to abuse of process of law Proceedings initiated for prosecuting accused
under penal code, liable to be quashed .
( Paras 15, 16, 18, 19 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J. p- 2058 ( All ))

9. Tirath Prakash ( deceased by L.R ) Appellant V. State, Respondent.

( D.K.JAIN J ) ( DELHI HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) S.6 Sanction Validity-

Amount of illegal gratification demanded by accused. Was Rs. 128 /- but
sanctioning authority mentioning same as Rs140/- in sanction order
 - 37 -

Contradiction in terms appearing not explained During cross examination

authority not remembering whether draft sanction order was also sent to him by
prosecuting agency along with record of case for making sanction order It could
be said that authority granted sanction without application of mind - Sanction
order is void ab initio.

( Para 12 )

(c) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ), Ss. 465 ,313

Trial of accused for taking illegal gratification- Validity- Omission to put precise
question as to quantum of illegal gratification to accused during his examination-
Accused can be said to have deprived of opportunity to explain precise case against him
It is a serious omission which goes to root of matter and cannot be termed as mere
irregularity- It also can not be cured by re- examination of accused since accused was
dead- Trial and consequent conviction, vitiated.
( Para- 19 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J. p- 4028 ( Del ))

10. Ahamed Kalnad and etc. Petitioners V. State of Kerala, Respondent.

( M.R. HARIHARAN NAIR , J ) ( KERALA HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) Ss. 13.19- Sanction for prosecution-
Common sanction order passed for more than 25 accused offences involved in all cases
similar and part of alleged larger conspiracy- passing common order justified and valid.

( Para- 6 )

(E) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S.19 (3)- Prosecution of Public

servant Sanction for validity- Allegation of non- application of mind, since sanction
was given to prosecute even retired and dead persons- No relevant documents produced
before court indicating application of mind Validity of sanction is matter which can
more appropriately be dealt with after trial is concluded and prima-facie defects could be
cured by producing evidence in trial- Trial proceedings can not be interfered with.

( Paras 21,22 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J p- 4448 ( KER)
 - 38 -

11. M. Nagaraj, Petitioner V. State of Karanataka, Respondent

( K. SREEDHAR RAO J ) ( KARNATAK HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), Ss. 19- 17- Karnataka Electricity Board
Employees ( Classification Disciplinary and control and Appeal ) Regulations ( 1987 ),
Regns. 10, 14- A- Sanction for prosecution- Competent authority- Accused employed as
Asst. Engineer in Karnataka Electricity Board charged for offence of accepting illegal
gratification from contractor to get his bill sanctioned- Investigation conducted by
Lokayukta Police and not by Loka Yukta / Uplokayukta as contemplated under Regn.
14A- Competent sanctioning authority would not be Board as envisaged under Regn
14A- Hence sanction accorded by Chief Engineer Electricity (General ) is valid.
( Para 8 )
( 2002 Cr.L.J.p-903 (KER)

12. Shiv Prakash Trivedi, Petitioner V. State of M.P. Respondent.

( S.C.PANDEY J ) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S.19(1)- Sanction for prosecution-

Applicant is public servant allegedly misused office of Under Secretary while he was
posted in State Cadre- Thereafter on promotion and selection applicant joined Indian
Administrative Service and was employee of Union Govt.- Applicant was employee of
state Govt. when offence was committed- Sanction for his prosecution granted by State
Govt- is valid- Plea that applicant was assigned year of allotment of IAS officer prior to
commission of offence - Not tenable as year of allotment is given for limited object of
making gradation list- Applicant can not be demand to be IAS Officer and employee of
Union since that date.
( Para 13,14 )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S.19 (1)- Sanction for prosecution-
Taking of cognizance of offence- crucial date for determination if sanction is necessary-
Is date on which cognizance is taken.
( Paras 13,14 )
( 2002, Cr. L.J.p- 1157 ( MAD )

13. Ramraj Prasad Karsoliya V. State of M.P Non- Applicant

( S.C.PANDEY J. ) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S.10- M.P Rajya Beej Evam Farm,
Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam ( 1980 ) Ss. 11,12 Sanction for prosecution- Authority-
 - 39 -

General Manager of Nigam who was appointed as Managing Director under S. 12 of

Adhiriyam for a short period to fill up vacancy during absence of Managing Director
Is akin to Managing Director who was regularly appointed under S. 11- Can be
appointed and removed by State Govt. only and as such authority for grant of
sanction for his prosecution is state Govt. Prosecution launched on basis of sanction
accorded by Board, liable to be quashed.

( Paras 9, 10 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J.p- 1594 ( MAD )

14 Ajit Singh Petitioner V State Respondents.

( ARUN MISHRA, J ) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) S.6- Sanction for prosecution Grant
of Validity- Order of sanction indicating that authority had recorded reasons relating to
demand of bribe- It has mentioned details of revenue case, organizing of Trap, details of
trap Besides evidence collected in case was also looked into Sanction order, proper.
( Para 12 )
( 2002 Cr. L J.p- 2256 ( MAD )

15 Manojbhai Bhagwandas Shah Petitioner V. State of Gujarat and

Another, Respondents.
( D.C.SRIVASTAVA, J ) ( GUJARAT HIGH COURT )

(C ) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19- Sanction for prosecution FIR

was lodged against revisionist ( Public servant ) for offence of accepting illegal
gratification and criminal misconduct and final report was submitted after investigation
that no case was made out against revisionist- Special Judge subsequently rejected final
report and summoned revisionist for alleged offences under Act- Prosecution or
complainant can obtain sanction at subsequent stage after direction to issue process
against revisionist given by special judge- Order of special judge rejecting final report
and summoning revisionist without directing police or complainant to obtain sanction-
Improper .
(Paras 12,14,15,16 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J. p- 2134 ( GUJ ))
 - 40 -

16. S.K.Bhargava Petitioner V. The State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Respondent.
( ASHOK PARIHAR, J ) ( RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) Ss. 13(1)(d) (2) Cognizance

of Offence Submission of final report after investigation before special Judge- Trial
Court after making certain observations, directed prosecution to place matter before
competent authority for sanction without referring to observations made by it- Not
improper, more so when sanction for prosecution was granted by competent authority
without being influenced by observations of court.

( Para 6 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J. p- 2435 ( RAJ )

17. Dr. Manmath Kumar Behera Petitioner V. State of Orissa.

( L.MOHAPATRA J ) ( ORISSA HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act, 1988- Sec. 13 and 19 The provisions of the Act
puts bar on courts jurisdiction in taking cognizance without sanction This permission
also does not relate to discharge the official duty.
( Para 4 )

(B) CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973- Sec. 197- Necessity of sanction-

When act complained of is in relation to discharge of official duty.

( 2002 O.C.R Vol. 22 p- 560 ( ORI )

18. J.Y. Reddy and others petitioners V. State, Respondent.

( S.R.K.PRASAD , J ) ( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19- Sanction for prosecution No

time limit for granting sanction prescribed under Act- Direction given by Supreme Court
in AIR 1988 S.C 889 to pass sanction orders within three months- Such directions are
mandatory and have binding force- It is equal to law of land.

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S.19- Sanction for prosecution- No

time limit fixed by statue for granting sanction- Supreme Court filling up lacunae and
directing in AIR 1998 SC 889 to pass sanction order within 3 months Direction were to
remain operative till Govt. framed guidelines or rules- pursuant to same vigilance
Commissioner fixed time frame of one month for granting sanction by way of
 - 41 -

departmental instructions accused can not complain- Consequently failure to issue

sanction within time frame of one month Does not render sanction order void or
invalid.
( 2003 Cr. L. J.p- 540 ( AND PRA )

19. Omkar Sharma and etc. Petitioners V. State of H.P and others,
Respondent
( W.A SHISHAK C.J & ARUN KUMAR GOEL J. ) ( HIMACHAL
PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(A) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S. 197- Sanction for prosecution of Public servant-
Once refused by competent authority- Cannot be revised or reviewed on same materials.

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19

(B) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S, 197 ( Paras 25, 26, 33 )

Sanction for prosecution of public servant- Delay in No explanation given by

respondent authorities as to why matter relating to sanction was not taken up with
expedition and promptitude- Fact that competent authority had earlier declined to accord
sanction and later on, on basis of same material had revised its earlier decision- Latter
decision according sanction to prosecute petitioners was with a view to mar his chances
of promotion- Long gap after completion of investigation and grant of sanction- Vitiates
prosecution case- permission to prosecute petitioners granted by Board, quashed-
Petitioners held entitled to costs of Rs. 5000/-.

( Paras 29,30,31,33,35 )
( 2003 Cr. L. J.p 1024 ( Him Pra ))

20. Puttaraje Urs. V. State of Karnataka, Respondent.

( M.P. CHINAPPA,J) ( KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Sanction for prosecution-

Grant of - Competent Authority- Under- Secretary to State Government signed sanction
order He had signed it only on authorization given by competent authority Plea that
sanction order was not issued by competent authority Is therefore not tenable.

( Para 4 )
( 2003 Cr. L. J.p- 1148 ( KAR )
 - 42 -

21. Mendi Ram Boro, Appellant V. State ( CBI ) Respondent.

( P.C. PHUKAN J ) ( GAUHATI HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ) S.6 Sanction for prosecution

Validity Entire facts constituting offence narrated in sanction order Sanctioning
Authority after carefully examining materials before it in regard to said allegations and in
circumstances of case recorded its satisfaction and granted sanction for prosecution of
accused for offences alleged against him Sanction not improper
( Para 4 )
( 2003 Cr. L.J.p- 1399 ( GAU))

22. M. Veeraiah Chowdary, Petitioner V. The State of A.P and Others,

Respondents.
( L. NARASIMHA REDDY J .) ( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 19- Criminal P.C (2 of 1974 ), S. 321

General clauses Act ( 10 of 1897 ), S. 21 - A.P General clauses Act ( 1 of 1891 ), S. 15
Sanction to prosecute- withdrawal of Competency of State Government Sanction
once accorded - Can not be withdrawn or rescinded by Govt. Inherent powers under S.
21 or S. 15 of General clauses Act can not be exercised for withdrawal of sanction to
prosecute- Decision to withdraw prosecution should emanate from public prosecutor.

( 2003 Cr. L. J.P- 1896 ( AND PRA )

23. State of Kerala Petitioner V. K.Karunakaran, Respondent.

( N.KRISHAN NAIR, J ) ( KERALA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S. 19(2) Sanction for prosecution

Necessity Accused alleged to have committed offence under Act while holding office
of Chief Minister At time charge sheet was filed accused was holding office of
Member of Parliament Held, question of obtaining sanction is relatable to time of
holding office when offence was alleged to have been committed- Permission of speaker
of Lok Sabha is thus not necessary for prosecuting him for offences under Act.

( 2003 Cr. L. J.p 2225 ( KER )

 - 43 -

24. R.D.Aherwar Petitioner V. Special Police Establishment and others,

Respondents.
( ARUN MISHRA, J ) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974), S. 197 Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 )

Ss. 13 (1) (d) (ii) (iii), 13 (2)- Penal code ( 45 of 1860 ) Ss. 120-B, 37- Criminal
misconduct and conspiracy Sanction to prosecute- Validity- Accused was Additional
Secretary to Government of M.P in Housing and Environment Department Allegations
of Criminal conspiracy and that act of accused caused loss to public exchequer to tune of
cores of rupees as found by Lokayukta in its order Sanction order clearly mentioning
that accused was involved in criminal conspiracy Facts were mentioned and reasons
were given in sanction order No non- application of mind FIR disclosing commission
of offence Fact that sanction for prosecution of other two Ministers involved in same
conspiracy were quashed on different ground Would be of no consequence as their lose
was standing on different footing- Sanction for prosecution of accused on question can
not be quashed .
( Paras 13,14,19 )
( 2003 Cr. L.J.p 2616 ( MAD PRA )

25. K. Narasimhachary Appellant V. State, Inspector of Police, Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Cuddapah District, Respondent.
( L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J ) ( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT )

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (1988 ) S.19- Prosecution for offences under Act
Sanction is necessary Fact that cognizance was taken can not by itself cure the defect.
( Para 11 )
( 2003 Cr. L. J.p 3315 ( AND PRA ))

26. State of Karanataka, Petitioner V.T.R Krishnamurthy, Respondent.

( K. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J ) ( KARNATAKA HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Sanction for prosecution-

Competent Authority Accused, a Sub- Inspector of Police DIG Police being
appointing authority under Mysore State Police Service ( Recruitment Rules- Is
competent to accord sanction- Order of special Judge holding sanction invalid without
referring to said Rule liable to be set aside
( Para (2) )
 - 44 -

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S. 19- Sanction for prosecution

Competent Authority It is not necessary that authority competent to give sanction for
prosecution should be vertically superior in the hierarchy.
( 2003 Cr. L.J.p- 3977 ( KAR )

27. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

petitioner V.P Subhash Chandra Reddy, Respondent.
( L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J )( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(D) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Prosecution for offence under

Sanction whether necessary Accused tried for offence under P.C Act, 1988 along with
offence under Ss. 409, 477-A, IPC- No sanction is required for offence under penal code
Discharge of accused of other offences on sole ground that sanction was not valid Not
justified.
( Para 27 )
( 2003 Cr. L.J.p- 4776 ( AND PRA )

28. Gian prakash Sharma Petitioner V. Central Bureau of Investigation,

Chandigarh and another, Respondents.
( SURYA KANT, J) ( PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.19(1)- Sanction for prosecution-

Allegation against official of taking illegal gratification- Refusal of Sessions Judge to
accept closure report submitted by C.B.I- Observations made by Judge regarding
question of procuring sanction- would not amount to comanding competent authority to
grant sanction without independent application of mind to facts- Competent authority has
to apply its mind independently for granting or refusing sanction.

( PARA 16)
( 2004 Cr.L.J. p-3817(P&H)

29. M.China Gopala Krishna Appellant V. State of A.P,Respondent.

( G.YETHIRAJULU,J) ( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.19- Sanction for prosecution- Is

necessary only in case of those Public Servants who were in office both on date of
commission of offence and on date when Court is asked to take cognizance-Accused
officer retiring from service long prior to date of taking cognizance of offence by Court-
Sanction not necessary.
( PARA-14)
( 2004 Cr.L.J p-3892 (AND PRA)
 - 45 -

30. Superintendent of Police, C.B.I.,SPE/ACU (VI), New Delhi,Petitioner

V. Sonam Wangdi,Respondent.
( R..K. PATRA C.J) ( SIKKIM HIGH COURT )

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.19- Sanction for

prosecution- Validity- Respondent, as IAS officer charged for having acquired assets
disproportionate to his known sources of income- Respondent on date of taking
cognizance was employed in connection with affairs of Union and was not removable
from his office except by Central Government- Competent authority to grant sanction to
prosecute him is Central Government- Order of Special Judge that prosecution was bad
for want of sanction by State Government in view of fact that respondent was employed
during first part of Check period in connection with affairs of State. Not proper.
( Paras 7,8)
( 2004 Cr.L.J p-4349(SIK)

31. S.K.Bhatia Petitioner V. C.B.I. Respondent.

( J.D.KAPOOR,J) (DELHI HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S.19(1)- Sanction for

prosecution- Competent authority- Petitioner serving in CPWD transferred to Income Tax
Department- Joined Income-tax Department on Deputation- No letter of absorption to
Income-Tax- Department was produced- His lien continues to be with his parent
department- Therefore competent authority to grant sanction was Superintending
Engineer of his parent Department and not borrowing department.
( Paras 5,7)
( 2004 Cr.L.J p-4730 (DEL)

32. State(Anti-Corruption Branch ) Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Anr.

Appellant V. Dr. R.C.Anand & Anr. Respondants.
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988-Section 19- Authorities competent to

remove the concerned officers Grant of sanction validity-Allegation against respondent
1 of demanding illegal gratification for reviewing an order of cancellation of contract-
laying of trap by Anti-Corruption Branch recovery of money with positive tests
indicating presence of phenolphthalein Sanction for prosecution of respondent 1 granted
by Governing Body of AIIMS- whether legally sustainable when President, Chairman of
Governing Body had suggested that sanction was not to be granted. ( Yes).
( 2004 O.C.R.(28) S.C. P-361)
 - 46 -

33. State by Police Inspector Appellant V.Sri T. Venkatesh Murthy,

Respondent.
(ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER, J.J.)(SUPREME COURT )

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988-Section 19 Sanction charge sheet filed

for offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act- Sanction
accorded by Superintendent Engineer of Electricity Board-Accused discharged by the
Trial Court on the ground of in-sufficiency of Sanction Not interfered with by
HighCourt- Held, the requirement of Sub-Section 3 relating to failure of justice not
examined by the Courts below- More omissions , error or irregularity in according
sanction would not affect validity of proceeding unless Courts ( be it Trial , Appellate or
Revisional ), recorded its satisfaction regarding failure of justice- Order set aside Trial
Court of record findings in terms of Clause (b) of Sub-section 3 & 4 of Section 19.

(Para -14)
( 2004 O.C.R.(29) S.C. p-457)
( 2004 A.I.R S.C. p-5117)

34. J.S.Bindra and anr, Petitioner V. C.B.I.Chandigarh, Respondent.

(SURYAKANT, J) (PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S-19 Sanction for prosecution

Necessity Accused working as General Manager & Sales Manager in Govt. Company
Companys 74% shares transferred in favour of Joint Sector Company only 26%
shares remained with Govt. said company is neither a Government Undertaking nor its
employees are public servants- No legal necessity to seek previous sanction from
appropriate Govt. for their prosecution.
Companies Act ( 1 of 1956), S. 617.
(2005 Cr.L.J P-406 ( P & H)

35. C.S.Krishnamurthy Appellant V.State of Karnataka Respondent.

( P.VENKATARAMA REDDI & A.K.MATHUR, J.J.)
(SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), S.6- Sanction for prosecution

Validity Accused public servant alleged to have possessed assets disproportionate to his
known sources of income Sanction order speaking for itself that incumbent has to
account for the assets- In such cases plea that particular materials was not properly placed
before Sanctioning Authority for according sanction and Sanctioning Authority has not
 - 47 -

applied its mind becomes unsustainable Sanctioning Authority had come in witness box
and deposed about his application of mind Facts mentioned in sanction order were
eloquent for constituting prima-facie offence under 5 (2) r/w S.5(1)(e) of Act- It could
be said that there was due application of mind by sanctioning authority and that sanction
was valid.
( Paras7,9,12)
( 2005 A.I.R. S.Cp-2790)
( 2005 O.C.R(31) S.C p-308)
( 2005 Cr.L.J p-2145(S.C))

36. K. Kalimuthu Appellant V.State, Respondent.

(ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA, J.J.)
(SUPREME COURT)

Criminal P.C. ( 2 of 1974), S. 197- Sanction for prosecution Plea that act
done by accused was in discharge of official duties and hence he was entitled for
protection under S. 197- Is not necessarily be considered as soon as the complaint is
lodged and on the allegations contained there in. Can be considered at subsequent
stage- Order of High Court declining to consider applicability of S.197 at stage of taking
of cognizance by Trial Court Not invalid- More over , in cases where offences under
Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned effect of S.19 dealing with question of
prejudice has also to be noted- See Criminal P.C (1974), S. 197.

(Para -15,16)
( 2005 A.I.R.S.C. P-2257)
(2005 Cr.L.J. S.C. P 2190)
(2005 OCR (31) S.C.P315)

37. Lalu Prasad & anr. Petitioner V. The State of Bihar respondents.
(RAM NANDAN PRASAD, BARIN GHOSH
MANOHAR LAL VISA, J.J.) ( PATNA HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988) Ss-13, 19- Sanction for prosecution
Possession of disproportionate assets by public servants Accused MLA was public
servant and was in possession of disproportionate assets Accused was also Chief
Minister of State for certain period and holding disproportionate assets- permission of
Speaker of Legislative Assembly to prosecute Accused , held , was not necessary .

(2005 Cr.L.J. P-3538( PAT)

 - 48 -

37. State of Goa, Appellant V. Babu Thomas, Respondent.

( H.K.SEMA & G.P. MATHUR J.J.) (SUPREME COURT )

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988) , S. 19(1) ( c ) Goa Shipyard

officers Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules 1979. R.2-Sanction for prosecution
Competent Authority Accused , a Manager in Govt. company demanded illegal
gratification Competent Authority to appoint and remove him was Board of Directors-
First sanction order was issued by company Secretary-Second sanction order was issued
by Chairman and Managing Director of Company who was not competent authority-
There was no reference to any resolution of Board of Directors pursuant to which
sanction orders were issued- Moreover, second sanction order was issued retrospectively
after cognizance was taken which is bad- plea that no failure of Justice had occasion by
mere irregularity error or omission in sanction order Is not tenable- Such sanction order
is not mere irregularity , error or omission- cognizance taken suffers from fundamental
error.
( Para- 10, 13 )
(2005, Cr.L.J.S.C. p- 4379)

39. P.A.Mohandas Appellant V. State of Kerala Respondent.

( G.B. PATTANAIK & BRIJESH KUMAR J.J.) (SUPREME
COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ,1988- Sec. 19 Lack of sanction for

prosecution by competent authority Secretary ( Vigilance ) was authorized to grant
sanction only on 23.4.94 Sanction accorded by the said authority prior to the said date,
held, was without jurisdiction Hence, proceedings quashed due to non-compliance with
Sec. 19.
(2005 OCR (30) S.C. p- 355)

40. Manoranjan Prasad Choudhury Petitioner V. State of Bihar

respondent.
( G.B. PATTANAIK & Y.K.SABHARWAL J.J.) ( SUPREME
COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sec 19(1)( c ) Sanction not accorded

by competent authority-Effect There being no sanction of competent authority
(Managing Director of the Company in instant case )- Proceeding initiated under the Act,
held was liable to be quashed.
(2005, OCR (30) S.C. p- 370)
 - 49 -

41. State of Karnataka appellant through CBI V. C. Nagaraja Swamy,

Respondent.
( S.B. SINHA & R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.J.) ( SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 19,7,13-Sanction Grant of Held

that grant of sanction by competent authority is sine-qua-non for taking cognizance and
should be dealt with at the stage of cognizance.
(Para-16)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 19,7,13 Sanction Validity and
Legality-Question as to competence of authority granting sanction at the stage of final
arguments Held, that same has to be considered having regard to terms and conditions
of service, for the purposes of determining as to who could remove him from service.
(Para-15)
(2005 OCR (32) S.C. 716)

42. N.Bhargavan Pillai ( dead) by L.Rs and anr, appellants V.State of

Kerala,Respondent.
( DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.J.)
( SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.19-Sanction for prosecution

Accused facing prosecution for offences under Act-Can not claim immunity on ground
of want of sanction.
(Para -8)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.5 (2)- Conviction of accused-
Benefit of probation Cannot be extended as S.18 of probation of offenders Act is not
applicable to case covered under S. 5 ( 2).
(Para -14)
( A.I.R. 2004 S.C.p-. 2317)
( 2004, OCR (28) S.C.p-. 396)

43. State and anr. Appellants V.Dr. R.C. Anand and anr, respondents.
( DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT , J.J.)
( SUPREME COURT )

(A) All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act ( 25 of 1956 ),S.29- All India
Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations(1999),Sch.2- Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49
of 1988 ),S.19- Sanction to prosecute- Employee belonging to Grp.Apost other than
Director in AIIMS- Governing Body and not President is the sanctioning Authority-
President passing provisional order declining sanction subject to ractification by
 - 50 -

Governing Body- Governing Body not obligated to give reasons to differ from view
expressed by President.

(B) All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act ( 25 of 1956),S.29- All India
Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations ( 1999 ), Sch.2- Prevention of Corruption Act
(49 of 1988), S.19- Sanction- consideration of material placed before it by sanctioning
authority- Transcript of tape record considered by sanctioning authority- Sanction order
is valid.
( Paras 13,14)
( 2004, A.I.R S.C.p-3693 )
 - 51 -

INVESTIGATION

1. State of Madhya Pradesh, and others Appellants V. Shri Ram Singh,

Respondent

With

State of Madhya Pradesh and others Appellants V. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Respondent

With

State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant V. Kedarilal Vaishya, Respondent.

(K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI JJ.) (SUPREME COURT)

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), Ss. 17.13 (1) (e)- Possessing
property disproportionate to known sources of income Investigation. By Inspector
authorized by Superintendent of Police Order of authorization showing application
of mind by superintendent of police merely because authorization order was in typed
proforma. Investigation and consequent proceedings could not be quashed.

( Paras 13,14,.15 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. S.C p-1401)
(2000 A.I.R S.C p- 870)
( O.C.R. 2000 Vol- 18 p- 527 )

2. Mahavir Prasad Shrivastava,. Applicant V. State of M.P. Non-

applicant
(R.P. GUPTA J) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 17 2nd proviso- Investigation-

order of authorization to investigate passed by Superintendent of Police Order need not
be supported by reasons.
( Paras 6,7 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. 1232 ( M.P )

3. Umesh Kumar Choubey Appellanty V. State of Madhya Pradesh,

Respondent.
(R.P.GUPTA J. ) ( MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 17 2nd proviso- Offence under S. 13 (1)

(e)- Investigation conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police without order of
authorization by superintendent of Police Is without jurisdiction This defect can not
 - 52 -

be cured by application of S.P before JMFC for issuing warrant of search to be conducted
by said D.S.P- Consequent challan under S. 173 Criminal P.C would also be
unauthorized Investigation and Police report liable to be quashed under S. 482,
Criminal P.C
( Paras 25, 26 and 27 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. p- 1760 M.P )

4. Dr. T.K.Sankaran Kuthy, Appellant V. State of Kerala and another,

Respondents.
(Dr. A.R.LAKSHMANAN AND MRS. D. SREEDEVI JJ.) ( KERALA
HIGH COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) , S. 17- Investigation of offence

conducted by Inspector of Police who were specially authorized by State Government by
issuing statutory notification Is valid Accused can not challenge competence of
officers who conducted investigation- More so when no prejudice was caused to accused
and writ petition filed was barred by laches.

Constitution of India Art. 226

( Paras 8, 9 and 13 )
( 2000 Cr. L.J. 3204 p- ( KER )

5. State by central Bureau of Investigation Appellant V. S.Bangarppa,

Respondent
( K.T. THOMAS AND R.P SETHI JJ ) (SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 17- Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S.

482 Persons authorized to investigate- Investigation conducted by C.B.I Legislative
insistence that investigation should only by an officer not below rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, can be given exception to Investigation conducted by Police
Inspector attached to C.B.I in pursuance of order issued by Supdt. of C.B.I not illegal
Not liable to quashed under S. 482 Criminal P.C ( Point conceded )
( Paras 11,12,13 )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 17- Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S.

482 Trial of offences specified under S. 3 by special judge State Government
Notification empowering 21 Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore as special Judge to try
offence- Criminal proceedings not liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction. But can
be transferred to court having jurisdiction Even if no court is empowered, criminal
 - 53 -

proceedings can be kept in abeyance till Government issues Notification conferring

power on competent court.
( Para 12 )

(c) Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) , Ss. 240, 482 Framing of charge Corruption case
against public Servant Materials which prosecution enumerates are sufficient to frame
charge Court need not wait till Public Servant satisfactorily explains his assets.
(Paras-22,23 )
( A.I.R 2001 S.C p-222 )
(Cr. L.J. 2001 S.C.p- 111 )

6. Rajinder Dass Gupta, Petitioner V. Central Bureau of Investigation,

Respondent.
(R.C.CHOPRA, J.) ( DELHI HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 17- Investigation FIR registered

against petitioner Accused and thereafter investigation were taken up by CBI by virtue
of orders passed by Superintendent of Police at the end of FIR which contained all
material allegations against the accused It can not be said that the order was passed
without considering allegations and material available against accused No infirmity in
order passed under second proviso to S. 17- Investigation not vitiated .
( Paras 11,12,16 )
( 2001 Cr. L J. p 2310 ( Del )

7. H.S.Gotla Petitioner V. State, Respondent.

( K. SREEDHAR RAO, J ) ( KARNATAKA HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) Ss. 17, 13- Charge of corruption-

Investigation- Sanction granted by Deputy Superintendent who was in charge
Superintendent at relevant time Not valid- mere placing of Deputy Supdt. as in charge
supdt. does not make him Supdt. of Police Continuation of Investigation quashed.
( Paras 3,4 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J.p- 2695 ( KAR )

8. G.A Ethiraj, Petitioner V. The State, Respondent

( M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM J ) ( MADRAS HIGH COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 17 G.O (D) No. 1 P and A.R

(Per. N) Department dated 28.1.1992 Investigation Authorization Govt. order
authorizing Inspector of Police to make investigation and take action against any officer
 - 54 -

falling under Groups A and B- power of arrest specifically excluded by said G.O but
other powers such as investigation and laying down traps not curtailed Accused was
Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Group B officer Filling of charge sheet against
him by Inspector of Police- would be valid as in consonance with said G.O- Fact that
arrest was also affected by Inspector of Police would not affect other investigation
which was validly conducted by Inspector as per general authorization Illegality in
arrest can not affect cognizance validly taken.
( Para 27 )
( 2001 Cr. L.J. p- 4139 ( Mad )

9. Satya Narayan Sharma, Appellant V. State of Rajasthan, Respondent.

( KJ.T.THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA JJ ) ( SUPREME COURT )

(A) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S. 19 Stay of trial- Trial of Public

servant for corruption charges No stay can be granted by Court by use of any power
This is also applicable to High Court when it exercises inherent jurisdiction under S. 482
Cr. P.C.

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ) S. 482 .

( Paras 3,6,7,8 )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S. 19 (3) (b)- Criminal P.C ( 2 of

1974) Ss. 482, 397- Prohibition against stay of proceedings Error, Omission or
irregularity in sanction- should not normally be a ground to grant stay Merely because
objection regarding sanction was raised at early stage is not a ground to hold that there
was failure of justice Over ruling objection on ground of sanction does not result in
failure of justice.
( Para 5 )
(2001 Cr.L.J. S.C. p- 4640)
(2001 A.I.R.S.C. p- 2856)

10. Dr. G.S.R Somayaji, Petitioner V. State through C.B.I Respondent.

( T. CH. SURYA RAO, J )( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT )

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974 ), Ss. 239, 156 Discharge of accused- Ground-

Lack of jurisdiction of Authority to investigate in crime Offence of bribery and
corruption by Central Government Servant On accept of Complaint against him crime
registered and trap laid down by ACB ( Anti corruption Bureau ) a State organization
Thereafter case transferred to CBI which took up investigation of case and charge sheet
 - 55 -

filed- There was no violation of any mandatory or directory provision of law No ground
made out to discharge accused.

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) , Ss. 13 (1) (2), 17.

( 2002 Cr.L.J.p 795 ( AND PRA )

11. State of Karnataka and etc., Petitioners V.B.Narayana Reddy,

Respondent
(G.PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J) ( KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ), S. 17 Second proviso Investigation-

offence under S. 13 (1) (e) Investigation entrusted to a lower rank officer viz, Inspector
of Police No reasons for entrustment assigned- Investigation, is illegal Accused
discharged But, FIR not quashed and authorities are at liberty to proceed afresh.
( Paras 15, 17 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J. p 845 ( KAR )

12. State of Punjab Appellant V. Harnek singh Respondent.

( R.P.SETHI AND BISHESWAR PRASAD SINGH J.J )
(SUPREME COURT )

Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) Ss. 17,30 (2) General clauses Act ( 10 of
1897 ), Ss. 6,24 Prevention of corruption Act ( 1947 ) ( since repealed ) S. 5-A(1)-
Investigation- Competent authority- Investigation Commenced by Inspectors of Police
posted in special Inquiry Agency authorized vide Notification issued under old Act of
1947- On repeal of 1947 Act accused filed petitions under S. 482 for quashing FIR
registered on ground that investigation had not been conducted by authorized officers
under 1988 Act. Held, proceedings are not liable to be quashed Reason being
notifications issued under 1947 Act authorizing Inspectors of Police in special Inquiry
Agency of Vigilance Deptt. Punjab Govt. to investigate cases registered under said Act
are saved under saving provisions of re- enacted 1988 Act.
( 2002 Cr. L.J. P- 1494 ( S.C )

13. State of M.P. Petitioner V. Dr. Devendra Singh, Respondent.

( S.L. KOCHAR, J ) (MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of corruption Act ( 2 of 1947 ), S.5 (A) (1) ( since repealed )- Investigation-
Order of trial court quashing art of investigation as not done by officer authorized under
Act- Order further granting liberty for conducting investigation and examination of
witnesses by authorized Officer and discharging Non- applicant accused Trial court
 - 56 -

thus not quashing entire investigation and charge sheet Revision against- Prosecution
stating that it does not bank upon to examine witnesses to be examined as per trial court
order- Non- applicant accused in circumstances can be proceeded excluding statement of
those witnesses- Order of trial court set aside.
( Para 11 )
( 2002 Cr. L.J.p- 4368 ( MADH PRA )

14. J.Venkateswarlu, Petitioner V .Union of India and others,

Respondents.
( B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND V. ESWARAIAH, JJ )( ANDHRA
PRADESH HIGH COURT )

(B) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S. 13- Govt. memo No. 700/
SC/D/88-4, Dt. 13.2.1989- Guidelines regarding completion of enquiries/ investigations
in corruption cases- C.1.4 of guidelines suggesting placing of accused officer under
suspension when charge sheet is filed against him- Does not suffer from legal infirmity.

(C) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) , S.13- Govt. Memo No.

700/SC/D/88-4/13-2-1989- Enforceability- Guidelines to investigating Officers regarding
inquiries/ investigations- Do not confer any right upon any person- Breach of guidelines-
Is not justiciable- writ of Mandamus would not be maintainable to enforce guidelines.

(D) Prevention of corruption Act ( 49 of 1988 ) S.17- Investigation- conducted by

Inspector authorized by Inspector General under S. 17- Not illegal .

( Paras 63, 65 )
( 2002 C r. L.J.p- 4009 ( ANDH PRA )

15. M.China Gopala Krishna, Appellant V. State of A.P., Respondent.

( G.YETHIRAJULU , J) ( ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988) , S.17- Persons authorized to

investigate- By virtue of G.O.M.S. No. 170 General Administration (SC.D) Deptt. Dt.
20.3.1968 issued under old act of 1947 , Govt. is competent to authorize Inspector of
Police of A.C.B. to conduct investigation- Thus investigation carried out by Inspector of
Police authorized by Govt. Not invalid.
( Para-20)
( 2004 Cr. L.J. p-3892 (AND PRA)
 - 57 -

16. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption ,

Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu Appellant V. Jayapaul Respondent
( RUMA PAL & P. VENKATA RAMA REDDI J.J. ) (SUSPREME
COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act- Section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) Cr.P.C.

Secs. 154 to 157 IPC Secs. 420 & 201 Police Officer who registered F.I.R. on the
basis of information received took up investigation High Court quashed prosecution on
ground that the Police Officer who laid / recorded the F.I.R. regarding the suspected
commission of certain cognizable offences by Respondent should not have investigated
the case and submitted the Final Report- Whether High Court was right in quashing the
prosecution holding that the very same Police Officer who registered the case ought not
to have investigated the case- Held , No.
( 2004 O.C.R. ( 28) S.C. 365)

17. State of Rajasthan Appellant V. Shambhoogiri Respondent

( K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & A.R. LAKSHMANAN JJ) ( SUPREME
COURT )

Prevention of Corruption Act , 1947 Sections 2 (h) , 5(1)(d) & (2), 507 Penal
Code , Sec. 161- Investigation- Persons authorized to conduct investigation Respondent
working as Head Constable , Police allegedly demanded Rs. 500/- - as illegal
gratification from P.W.-1 after arresting him U/s 110 Cr.P.C. Respondent has to
produce P.W.-I before S.D.M. and on the same day P.W.-I had to give Rs. 200/- - P.W.-1
sent a written complaint with Rs. 200/- - currency note to S.D.M.- P.W.-6, S.D.M. noted
numbers of currency notes in his diary and after getting initials of S.D.M. , these notes
were given to P.W.-1 P.W.-1 was asked to give these currency notes to respondent
/accused . P.W.-1 gave Rs. 200/- notes to Respondent on demand- When informed P.W.-
6, S.D.M. called the accused in his chamber and asked him to produce Rs. 200/- from his
pocket. Accused produced that Rs. 200/- before the S.D.M. who verified the numbers of
the currency notes from the entries noted in his diary, which was found the same- S.D.M.
prepared a recovery memo of those notes and thereafter sent memo of recovery alongwith
the notes to the Collector and also sent this information to the Superintendent of Police-
Superintendent of Police sent this information to Anti Corruption Department Case
registered U/s 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) & 5(2) of the P.C.Act- Trial Court held the
accused guilty of the offence- High Court set aside conviction on ground that
investigation having been commenced at the instance of unauthorized person is without
 - 58 -

jurisdiction and faulty, therefore unsustainable-whether High Court was justified in

holding that S.D.M . conducted investigation Held, No.
( Paras 7,8,&9.)
(2004, O.C.R.(29) S.C. p-815)

18. State of Madhya Pradesh,Appellant V. Navneet Lal Kasidar,Non-

applicant.
(AJIT SINGH,J) (MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), Ss.17,19- Investigation-demand of

illegal gratification- Accused a Clerk in office of Collector alleged to have demanded
Rs.200/- from Complainant for processing her application for withdrawal of amount from
GPF account- Collector verified truthfulness of allegation made by his staff, the
complainant- Allegations found to be true- Collector had only sent information regarding
misconduct of accused to Police for investigation- Entire investigation was conducted by
City Superintendent of police- Not improper. Further request for sanction made by
Superintendent of police and forwarded by Collector- Can not be said to have occasioned
failure of justice- Order of discharge, on ground that investigation was done by Collector
and that sanction was not properly given, held improper.
( Paras 5,6 )
( 2005 Cr.L.J. p-1328 (MADH PRA))

19. Pravin Kumar petitioner V. The State Respondent.

( N.A. BRITTO, J ) ( BOMBAY HIGH COURT)

(A) Central Vigilance Commission Act ( 45 of 2003),S.8(1)(d)- Prevention of

Corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.17- Investigation- Power given to Central Vigilance
commission- Are in addition to and not in derogation of powers given to officers of
C.B.I. and others under S.17 of P.C.Act- Investigation can not be conducted by Central
Vigilance Commission without there being a complaint before it.
( Para 18)
( 2005 Cr.L.J p-2714(BOM))
 - 59 -

BENAMI TRANSACTION

1. Subhash Kharate, Appellant V. State of M.P. Respondent.

( S.B. SARRIKA J.) (MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 2 of 1947),S.5(1)(a)- Possession of property

disproportionate to income- Allegations that purchase of plot by accused, a Forest
Ranger in name of his wife was benami statement of witness that said plot was purchased
by Father of accuseds wife- Can not be discarded only on ground that said witness
turned hostile- failure on part of prosecution to prove that said plot was purchased benami
out of funds of accused- It can not be said that said plot and house constructed there on
was acquired by the accused in excess of his legal and known sources of income-
Conviction of accused under S.5(1)(e) not proper.
( paras 15,18,19)
{ Cr.L.J. 2000 p- 1178( M.P)}

2. Sheel Kumar Choubey, Petitioner v. State of Madhya Pradesh and

others, Respondents.
(DIPAK MISHRA J.) (MADHYA RADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) S.13(1)(e) Complaint and

Charge sheet - Quashing of Acquisition of assets and properties disproportionate to
known sources of income Petitioner pubic servant had allegedly purchased benami
properties and assets in name of his various relatives He was given opportunity to
explain his stand and also submitted his explanation Allegations in F.I.R. and Charge
sheet not abused or inherently improbable Petitioner could adduce cogent evidence in
support of his pleas in trial No ground made out to quash F.I.R. and Charge sheet in
writ jurisdiction.

Constitution of India, Art. 226 (Para-19).

{ 2001 Cr.L.J. p 3728 (M.P.) }

3. K.Ponnuswamy, Appellant v. State of Tamil Nadu, Respondent

( K.T.THOMAS AND S.N.VARIAVA JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), Ss.13(1)(e), 13(2) Criminal

misconduct by public servant proof Prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt
that prior to check period accused and his wife and daughter had no real source of income
 - 60 -

Financial condition of family was such that accused could not even repay his small debt
prior to check period nephew of accused did not make any gift to member of family of
accused nor extended any help to pay off debt Fact that monies were transferred by
accused to his wife and daughter through his nephew can be legally presumed Monies
so donated in name of family member of accused by his nephew cannot be said to be
gifted out of sudden brust of love and affection Accused failed to account satisfactorily
for such gifts made by his nephew to his family members Prosecution proved that
properties were held benami by family members on behalf of accused Conviction of
accused, under S.13(1)(e) r/w S.13(2) No interference.
(Para 28)
(2001 Cr.L.J. S.C. p-.3960)
(2001 A.I.R. S.C. p-.2464)
 - 61 -

MISAPPROPRIATION

1 Badri Prasad Shrivastava,Applicant V. State of Madhya Pradesh, Non

applicant.
(DIPAK MISRA J.) (MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act(49 of 1988), S.13(1)(c) , (2) - Criminal

proceedings against public servant Period of limitation prescribed under Central Civil
Services Pension Rules Does not come in the way of initiation of Penal action against
him.
( Para-9 )
{ 2000 Cr.L.J. p- 2070(M.P.) }

2. Tuncay Alankar and another etc. etc. Petitioners

v. Union of India and etc. Respondents.
(M.S.A. SIDDIQUE J.) (DELHI HIGH COURT)

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482 Quashing of charge Allegations that accused
persons entered into criminal conspiracy with object to defraud National Fertilizer
Limited and swindle of whopping sum of Rs.133 crores Accused persons charged for
offence of Corruption, Criminal conspiracy, Criminal breach of trust and cheating
Material collected sufficient for raising strong suspicion to form a presumptive opinion as
to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting alleged offences Circumstantial
evidence prima facie showing alleged criminal conspiracy was executed with ingenuity,
dexterity and adroitness Order framing charge against accused persons, proper.
(Paras-30 33)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) S.4(3) Jurisdiction of Special Judge
Accused persons charged for offences under Ss.120-B/409/420 of Penal Code r/w S.13 of
Act Alleged offences committed by accused persons in course of same transaction
Special Judge has jurisdiction to try such offences.
(Para-34)
{ 2000 Cr.L.J. p-3280(Delhi) }

3. Selvi J. Jayalalitha, Petitioners v. State.Respondent.

(S.THANGARAJ J.) (MADRAS HIGH COURT).

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13(1)(c ) Criminal breach of trust

Misappropriation of property by public servant Unsuccessful auctions for sale of
property belonging to TANSI, a Corporation owned by Government Accused on
 - 62 -

becoming Chief Minister purchased property in public auction after proposal for
disposing of property was renewed for benefit of Corporation Allegation that accused
presided over meeting in which proposal to sale property was renewed and was Chief
Minister and also Minister for Industries at relevant time Not tenable in view of
remoteness of those reasons which do not have direct bearing with charge of
misappropriation charges U/s.13(1)(c ) of Act set aside.
(Paras-44,45)
(2001 Cr.L.J. p- 3074 (MAD))

4. CBI, AHD, Patna, Appellant v. Braj Bhushan Prasad and others.

With
R.K.Rana, appellant v. C.B.I., Patna and others Respondents.
(K.T.THOMAS, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED
QUADRI AND U.C. BANARJEE JJ.) (SUPREME COURT)

(C ) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss.13(1)(c ),(d), 4 Offences under

S.13(1)(c ) and (d) Place where they are committed Is place where money goes out of
public treasury i.e. at place where treasury is situated Count at that place would have
jurisdiction.
(Paras-35,36,37)

(D). Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss.4(2), 13(1)(c ),(d) Criminal P.C.
(2 of 1974), Ss.178, 180, 412) Offences under Act Place of Trial Is the place where
offence is committed Provisions of Criminal P.C. do not apply and stand displaced by
Act.
(Paras-39,40,41)
(2001 Cr.L.J. S.C. p- 4683)

5. S. Jayaseelan, Appellant v. State by SPF, CBI, Madras, Respondent.

(M.KARPAGAVINDYAGAM, J) (MADRAS HIGH COURT)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.409,477-A Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of

1947), Ss.5(2), 5(1)(c ) Criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts
Dishonest intention proof Accused a cashier in Bank failing to credit loan amounts
taken from loaness but making relevant entries in their pass book Entrustment of said
amount to accused duly proved Fact that accused has made entries on several occasions
in pass books and did not choose to show payments in ledger books shows that
elements of dishonesty was explicit Accused liable to be convicted for offence alleged
 - 63 -

Fact that accused had repaid entire amount before investigation would not absolve
him of criminal liability.
(Paras-13,15,19,21,23)
{2002 Cr.L.J.P.-732(Mad.)}

6. Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav Petitioner v. State, Respondent.

(D.N.PRASAD J.) (JHARKHAND HIGH COURT)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) S.437 Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.120-B Prevention
of Corruption Act (49 of 1988) Ss.13(2) and 13(a)(c ) Bail Grant of Fraudulent
withdrawn and misappropriation of huge amount from District Treasury by accused by
presenting false bills Prime accused while in judicial custody conspired with
Government officials to scuttle enquiry/investigation Allegations being very serious in
nature Accused not entitled to grant of bail.
(Paras 7,8)
{2002 Cr.L.J.P.-2262(JHA)}

7. Ramanandan Prasad, Appellant v. State of Orissa, Respondent.

(A.S.NAIDU, J) (ORISSA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.13 Falsification of accounts and

misappropriation of funds-Evidence on record showed that accused was custodian of cash
and account books Handwriting of accused was also proved by witness who was
acquainted with it Report of Accountant General clearly showed that there was
manipulation in entries made by accused- Fact that accused had sometimes deposited
money after detection of misappropriation supported allegation of misappropriation in
instant case Conviction of accused, proper Considering fact that occurrence took
place in 1986 and accused had made good shortage of cash, sentence of R.I. of three
years reduced to one year. (Paras 10 to 13)
{2004 Cr.L.J.P.-4366(ORI)}
{2004 O.C.R.(29) P.-58(ORI)}

8. N.Bhargavan Pillai(dead) by Lrs. And Anr. Appellants v.Stte of

Kerala Respondent.
(DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 49 of 1988 Section 5(2), 19 Penal Code

Section 409 Cr.P.C. Section 192 Sanction for prosecution Misappropriation of
Stock Accused was employed in Civil Supplies Department in the rank of Assistant
 - 64 -

Taluk Supply Officer He was working as Junior Manager on deputation in Kerala State
Civil Supplies Corporation Appointment as Unit Manager of the Corporation On
completion of 5 years deputation, Corporation requested Civil Supplies Department to
extend his term of deputation Subsequently, Regional Manager issued order relieving
the accused However, accused did not handover charge nor did he attend office but
applied for leave Regional Manager permitted P.W.3, Senior Assistant to assume
charge Thereafter accused reported in the depot In presence of accused items found in
the godown were verified As per stock verification report, there was a shortage of 102
quintals of bailed rice, 72 quintals of palmolein and 39 quintals of sugar Accused
undertook to remit Rs.1,63,770/- being the value for shortage of stock Accused was
suspended from service Registration of case against him Accused retired from service
Trial Court convicted accused High Court upheld his conviction whether trial was
vitiated for absence of sanction Held No.
(Paras 9,13 & 14)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 Section 5(2) Probation of Offenders Act,

1958 Section 18 Conviction under Sec.5(2) of P.C.Act Application for benefit
under Probation Act barred Specific bar regarding applicability of probation Act.
(Para 15)
{2004 A.I.R. S.C.P.-2317}
{2004 O.C.R.(28) S.C.396}

9. Ramananda Prasad Appellant v. State of Orissa. Respondent.

(A.S.NAIDU, J) (ORISSA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Sec.5(1)(c ) read with Section 5(2), Section
409 and 477-A Indian Penal Code Appellant being the Senior Clerk-Cum-Cashier
misappropriated funds of the institute to the tune of Rs.50,217.15 paisa The appellant
deposited the misappropriation amount and thereby admitting the defalcation The plea
of the appellant that amount was found short due to wrong entries in the cash book cannot
be believed Held, there is no illegality in the finding of the Trial Court in convicting the
appellant Honble Court taking into account the passage of time since the date of
incident and deposit of the shortage of cash reduced the sentence from R.I. for three years
to R.I. for one year.
(Paras 10 & 11)
{2004 O.C.R. 29 P.-581(ORI)}
 - 65 -

10. Ram Narain Poply, Appellant v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

Respondent
WITH
Promod Kumar Manecha Appellant v. C.B.I. Respondent
WITH
Vinayak Narayan Deosthali Appellant v. C.B.I. Respondent
WITH
Harshad S.Mehta Appellant v. C.B.I. Respondent
AND
Central Bureau of Investigation, Appellant v. Ambuj Sushil Kumar Jain,
Respondent.
(M.B. SHAH, B.N.AGRAWAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ)
(SUPREME COURT)

(G) Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 471 Prevention of
Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss.13(2), 13(1)(c ) Security scam case Allegation of
siphoning of funds of MUL in favour of individual Investment of surplus funds of
MUL with private individual prohibited Transaction in question though for benefit of
broker individual, entered in such a way as to present a picture as if broker had nothing to
do with it Transactions entered with aid and assistance and direct involvement of
officers of MUL, bank and broker Accused persons liable to be convicted considering
facts that officers involved are smaller fues, all the money misappropriated has been
returned offence had taken place a decade back and death of prime accused the broker
sentence reduced to period already undergone.
{2003, A.I.R. S.C. P.-2748}
{2003, Cr.L.J.P.-4801(S.C.)}
 - 66 -

PRESUMPTION
1. M. Narasinga Rao, Appellant V. State of Andhra Pradesh Respondent.
(K.T.THOMAS, U.C.BANERJEE& R.P. SETHI,JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988),S.20(1)- Acceptance of

gratification- Presumption- Is Compulsory and not discretionary Prosecution proved
that accused received gratification from Complainant- In circumstances Court can draw
Legal presumption that said gratification was accepted as reward for doing public duty.
( Para 14)
(A.I.R. 2001 S.C.p-318)
(Cr.L.J.2001 S.C.p-515)
( S.C.C.2001 Vol-1 part-6 p-691)

2. Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Appellant V. State of Maharashtra,

Respondent.
( K.T. Thomas & R.P SETHI JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act,1947- Sec.4(1)- Presumption as to corruption- Proof

of payment or receipt of gratification sufficient to raise legal presumption that
gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do any official act- No further
duty to prove beyond fact that demanded money had been paid.

( A.I.R.2001 S.C. p- 147)

( Cr.L.J 2001 S.C p- 175)
( O.C.R. 2001 Vol-20 S.C. p-211)

3. C. Kishan Rao, Appellant V. State of ACB Cases,Respondent.

( V.ESWARAIAH J) ( ANDHRA PRADESH)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.20- Acceptance of bribe-

Recovery of marked currency notes from pocket of accused proved- Presumption as to
acceptance of bribe- Not rebutted by accused by evidence of independent witness though
available- Conviction of accused justified.
( 2002 Cr.L.J NOC 2 ANDH PRA)

4. Subash Parbat Sonvane Appellant V. State of Gujarat,Respondent.

(M.B. SHAH, BISHESHWAR PRASAD SING AND H.K. SEMA,JJ)
( SUPREME COURT)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), Ss.20, 13(1)(a)(b)(d),7,11- Statutory

Presumption under S.20- Available for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Section
 - 67 -

11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section(1) of Section 13 and not for Clause (d) of sub
section (1) of Section 13.
( Para 9)
( 2002 Cr.L.J. p-2787 (S.C))

5. Madhukar Gulabrao Khadse, Appellant V. State of

Maharashtra,Respondent
( S.G. MAHAJAN,J ) ( BOMBAY HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.20- Acceptance of bribe-

Presumption under S.20,that it is as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act etc.- said presumption is rebuttable- Presumption rebutted by admission of
Complainant himself that money was received by accused as repayment of handloan
given to him by the accused- Accused entitled to be acquitted.
( Para-19 )
( 2002 Cr.L.J.p-2445 (BOM))

6. State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant V. V. Vasudeva Rao, Respondent.

( DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT J.J ) ( SUPREME
COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 2 of 1947), S.4- Evidence Act ( 1 of 1872), Ss4
114- Bribe taking Presumption under S.4- Expression shall be presumed used in S.4-
To be understood as in terrorem i.e. having some import of compulsion- Proof that
accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification- Is only condition sine quanon
for drawing such legal presumption- Standard of proof required, stated- Reliable material
to hold that there was recovery of money from accused- plea of loan raised by accused
incredible- Applying illustration (a) to S.114 of Evidence Act it can be presumed that
accused accepted bribe- Conviction sustained.
( 2004 Cr.L.J. S.C.p- 620 )

7. T. Shankar Prasad, Appellant V. State of Andhra Pradesh,

Respondent.
( DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ) ( SUPREME
COURT)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.20- Illegal gratification, acceptance

of by Public servant- Presumption under S.20- Is a presumption of law and cast an
 - 68 -

obligation on court to operate it in every case brought in- It is rebutted by proof and not
by explanation which may seem to be plausible.
( Paras 13,14,24)
( 2004 Cr.L.J. p- 884 S.C.)

8. Nanda Kishore Prasad Sinha, Petitioner V. Republic of India, opp

party.
( R.N. BISWAL,J) ( ORISSA HIGH COURT)

( A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sec.20,73(1),13(2)- Cr.P.C.-

Sec.457- Release of certain documents- Non-appearance of the accused before the Court
is not a ground to reject his petition under the Section- Direction for release of
documents.
( Para-9 )
( 2005,O.C.R (31) p-358(ORI))

9. Union of India through Inspector, CBI Appellant V. Purnandu

Biswal, Respondent.
( S.B.SINHA & R.V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act,1988- Section 20- Presumption where Public

servant accepted gratification other than legal remuneration- Where accused was charged
under Section 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Act, Section 20 would not be attracted.
( Para 36)
( 2005 OCR (32) SC- 869)

10. State of Andhra Pradesh Appellant V. C. Uma Maheswar Rao and

another, Respondents.
( DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT,JJ) ( SUPREME
COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), S.20(1)- Evidence Act ( 1 of

1872),Ss.4,114- Presumption as to acceptance of bribe by Public servant as motive or
reward for doing/ not doing official act- Expression shall be presumed employed in
S.20- Has import of compulsion- proof of acceptance or agreed to accept any
gratification is condition precedent for drawing presumption- Standard of proof
referred,stated.

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.20(1)- word gratification- Content

in which word is used is important for drawing presumption as to acceptance of
gratification- Evidence of complainant can not be ignored on grounds that he had earlier
 - 69 -

made grievances against some other officials- Evidence of Panch witness also proved
giving of money- Complainants version corroborated by evidence of Preventive officer
and Investigating officer- Acquittal of accused, improper.
( Paras 26,27)
( 2004,A.I.R. S.C p-2042)
( 2004,O.C.R(28) S.C.p-276)
 - 70 -

SPECIAL JUDGE

1. State of Bihar, Petitioner V. Braj Nandan Raut,Respondent.

(NARAYAN ROY,J) ( PATNA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), Ss3,4- Special Judge-

Jurisdiction of Vacation/Sessions Judge not notified as Special Judge under S.3- Is not
the Court of the Special Judge within meaning of S.4- Hence,Vacation/Sessions Judge
had no jurisdiction to entertain bail applications of accused persons relating to offences
under Act.
Criminal P.C. ( 2 of 1974), s.438.
(Paras 16,17)
( 2001 Cr.L.J. p- 3678(PAT))

2. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Petitioner V. Central Bureau of

Investigation, Respondent
( R.C.CHOPRA,J) (DELHI HIGH COURT)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988) S.5(2)- Grant of Pardon- Special

Judge has power to tender pardon at investigation stage i.e before filing of charge-sheet.
Criminal P.C. ( 2of 1974), Ss.307,308.
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988),S.5(2)- Tender of pardon can not be
objected by a co-accused at investigation stage.
Criminal P.C (2of 1974) S.307.
( 2001 Cr.L.J.p-3710(DEL))

3. CBI,AHD,Patna,Appellant V. Braj Bhushan Prasad and others.

With
R.K. Rana, Appellant V. C.B.I.,Patna and others Respondents.
(K.T.THOMAS,SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI&
U.C.BANARJEE,JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

(C) Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988),Ss.13(1)(c),(d),4- Offences under

S.13(1)(c)and(d)- Place where they are committed- Is place where money goes out of
public treasury i.e.at place where treasury is situated- Court at that place would have
jurisdiction.
( Para 35,36,37)
 - 71 -

(D) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),Ss.4(2),13(1)(c),(d)-152 Criminal

P.C.(2of 1974),Ss.178,180,4(2)- Offences under act- Place of Trial- Is the place where
offence is committed- Provisions of Criminal P.C. do not apply and stand displaced by
Act.
( Paras 39,40,41)
( 2001 Cr.L.J. S.C p-4683 )

4. P. Raghuthaman, Petitioner V. State of Kerala and Another,

Respondents.
( G. SASIDHARAN,J) (KERALA HIGH COURT)

Criminal P.C (2of 1974), S.156(3)- Registration of case- Preliminary enquiry-

whether necessary- Private complaint forwarded to Vigilance Special cell for
investigation under S.156(3) from Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge,
Vigilance- Case registered on basis of said complaint- Vigilance cell need not conduct
preliminary enquiry.
Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988),S.5.
( 2002 Cr.L.J.p-337(KER))

5. K.M. Kumarswamy,Appellant V. The State,Respondent.

(M.F. SALDANHA,J) (KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988),Ss.3,5(1)(d)- Criminal P.C. (2 of

1974),S.374- Special Judge- Powers of- conviction of accused, a Govt. Servant, for
receipt of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification- Special Judge who ordered conviction was not
notified and appointed as Special Judge on date of decision- In view of long pendency of
matter, High Court instead of ordering retrial set aside conviction of accused- Service
benefits to which accused is entitled enumerated.
Constitution of India Arts 311,21.
( Paras 6,8,10,11)
( 2002 Cr.L.J.p-3195(KAR))

6. Dr.Jagannath Mishra, Petitioner V. State Jharkhand,Respondent.

( DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD J ) ( JHARKHAND HIGH COURT )

Criminal P.C. ( 2 of 1974) S.407- Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988),

Ss.4,5- Transfer of cases to one Court- Petitioner former Chief Minister of State charged
for committing criminal misconduct- 36 cases of fodder scam transferred to one state for
trial and speedy disposal- State Government appointed six special Judge for trying those
cases at one place- No grievance against any of Special Courts- Mere allegation that
 - 72 -

petitioner would not get quick justice by keeping those cases in different Courts- Could
not be taken in account in view of fact that all cases are being tried at one place- More so
when it may cause prejudice to other accused persons charge-sheeted in each of said
cases.
( Paras 9,11)
( 2002 Cr.L.J p-4646(JHA))

7. Vasant Arjunrao Bhandak, Appellant V. State of Karnataka,

Respondent.
(UMESH C.BANERJEE & B.N.AGARWAL,JJ) (SUPREME
COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), Ss.3,26,30- Criminal Law

Amendment Act( 46 of 1952),S.6(Since repealed)- Trial of offences- Appointment of
Special Judge to try offences under old Act of 1947- Would be deemed to be appointment
in terms of S.3 of new Act of 1988 by virtue of Ss.26 and 30 of new Act- Issuance of
fresh notification, not necessary.
( Paras 6,11)
( 2003 Cr.L.J. S.C.p-394)
( 2003 A.I.R S.C.p-161)

8. N.P.Prabhu Petitioner V. Union of India and another,Respondents.

( N.KRISHNAN NAIR,J) ( KERALA HIGH COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988), Ss.12,14(6)- Trial of offences-

Committed by non public servant- Powers of Special Judge-Offence under S.7or S.11
abetted by accused, a non-Public servant.Accused can be tried by a Special Judge even if
offence abetted is not commited by a Public Servant.
( Paras 5,6)
( 2003 Cr.L.J. p- 2261(Ker))
 - 73 -

SPEEDY TRIAL
1. Mahendra Lal Das, Appellant V. State of Bihar and others,
Respondents
( M.B. SHAH & R.P.SETHI, JJ) ( SUPREME COURT )

Constitution of India, Art.21- Prevention of Corruption Act ( 49 of 1988)

S.19(3)(6)- Speedy trial- Corruption case- Sanction to prosecute Despite expiry of over
12 years State has not granted sanction for prosecution of appellant- Failure of
prosecution to explain the delay- State also not satisfied with merits of case and of
opinion that despite sanction trial would be mere formality and exercise in futility-
Appellant lost his chance of promotion because of allegation of corruption pending
against him- Also deprived of love and affection of his family living abroad-
Constitutional mandate of speedy justice violated- proceedings liable to be quashed.
Crl.W.J.C No.378 of 2000 D/-31-7-2000 ( Patna ), Reversed.
( Paras 6,7,9)
( 2001 Cr.L.J. S.C. 4718)
( 2001 A.I.R.2001 S.C. 2989)

2. P. Ramachandra Rao, Appellant V. State of Karnataka,Respondent.

( S.P. BHARUCHA,C.J.I,SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,
R.C. LAHOTE, N. SANTOSH HEGEDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU,
MRS RUMA PAL,ARIJIT PASAYAT JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

(A) Constitution of India, Arts 21,32,141,142,226- Criminal P.C.( 2of 1974),

Ss.309,311,258- Right to speedy trial- Enacting bars of limitation entailing termination of
trial or proceedings by Judicial Verdict Held, uncalled for and impermissible judicial
legislation- Guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulays case reaffirmed- Decision to operate
prospectively.
( 2002 Cr.L.J. S.C.p-2547)
( 2002 A.I.R. S.C. p- 1856)
 - 74 -

COMPLAINANT
1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Appellant V. J.B.Singh, Respondent.
( G.B.PATTANAIK & S.N. VARIAVA JJ) (SUPREME COURT)

Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.5(1)(d)- Offence under

Accused,Police officer alleged to have demanded money for releasing complainant who
was being detained and which he got pursuant to said demand- Complainant himself
turned hostile- Statement made by prosecution witness is that Sub-Inspector told him that
accused be paid some money for releasing complainant can not be held to be statement to
establish fact of demand- No material to establish alleged payment- Ingredients of
offence under Sec5(1)(d),not established- Acquittal justified.
( Para-4 )
( 2000 Cr.L.J. S.C.p-4591 )
 - 75 -

DEFENCE EVIDENCE

1. Arivazhagan,Appellant V. State represented by Inspector of

Police,Respondent.
( K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH JJ) ( SUPREME COURT)

Criminal P.C ( 2 of 1974),S.243(1)( as amended by S.22 of Prevention of

Corruption Act (1988)}- Prevention of corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.5(1) Defence
evidence- Trial of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act- Accused to furnish list
of witnesses before entering defence- Charge incorporated in S.243(1) of Cr.P.C. by S.22
of P.C.Act- Is with view to expedite trial.
(Paras 2,13,16,17,19,20)
( A.I.R.2000 S.C. p-1198)
 - 76 -

EXPERT EVIDENCE
1. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Petitioner V. Abdul
Karim Ladsab Telgi and Others,Respondents.

(A) Evidence Act ( 1 of 1872), Ss.8,45- Application for permission to record voice
sample of accused- For purpose of identification of his voice to compare it with tape
recorded telephonic Conversion. Requiring accused to record his voice sample- Does not
infringe Art 20(3) of Constitution as it does not amount testimonial compulsion.
(B) Evidence Act ( 1of 1872),S.45- Expert Opinion- Application for permission to
record voice of accused to compare it with tape recorded version- Field by Central
Bureau of Investigation-Earlier application for same purpose field by other agency
engaged in investigation of case, pending in another state- Application can not be rejected
on that ground.
( Para-16)

(c) Evidence Act ( 1 of 1872),S.45- Expert Opinion- Application for Permission to

record voice of accused to compare it with tape-recorded version- can not be rejected on
ground that there are voice experts who can easily concoct or tamper voice of any person
or that accused can also change their voice,if they are compelled to give voice sample on
fourth reason that it will be difficult for expert to record voice sample under compulsion.
( para- 18)
( Cr.L.J. 2005 p-2868(BOM))